Case Law Details

Case Name : Jaipur Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number : ITA.No..109/JP/2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 16/06/2016
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10

The  case of assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. While framing the assessment, the AO restricted the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act  and also confirmed the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)  consequent to  deposit of TDS after due date of filing of return for the AY 2009-10.  Appellant challenged the reopening of the case on the ground that  reopening of a case assessed u/s 143(3)  within 4 years requires the sanction of Additional Commissioner u/s 151 instead of sanction accorded by CIT.

Such reopening  been further challenged on the ground that  CAG  auditor’s interpretation of Section  80P can not be treated as information for reopening by the AO.  Hon’ble Bench rejected the  first contention and held that  according the sanction to reopening by higher authority i.e. CIT  in place of lower authority  i.e. JCIT  is in accordance with the law as the post-approval of JCIT was on record.  However, the  objection raised by the auditor is with regard to the rate of entitlement of deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(i) which is  necessarily an issue of application or interpretation of law. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of CIT vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) is squarely applicable, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an auditor’s opinion in regard to application or interpretation of law can not be treated as information by the AO as information for re-opening of assessment.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021