Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral):--

1. This writ petition is directed against the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), which was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2012 seeking to re-open the assessment which had been completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act on 30.11.2007 in respect of the assessment year 2005-06.

2. It is evident that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the first proviso to Section 147 of the said Act would be applicable. The said Section 147 along with the said first proviso reads as under:-

“147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):

Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the re-assessment proceedings were bad in law inasmuch as the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 147 of the said Act had not been fulfilled. In essence, he submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. He submitted that apart from there being no such failure on the part of the petitioner, there was not even any allegation with regard to such failure in the reasons which were supplied to the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of the said notice.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire controversy revolves around the deduction which had been claimed and allowed to the petitioner under Section 10A of the said Act in the original assessment order dated 30.11.2007. In the assessment order, it was specifically stated that the assessee company deals in software design, development and modification services and had claimed exemption under Section 10A of the said Act. After making certain disallowances on account of certain other items and examining the return and accompanying documents, the Assessing Officer assessed the profit and gains from business and profession as nil as claimed by the petitioner/assessee on account of the exemption claimed under Section 10A. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the fact that the computation, accompanying the return, specifically referred to the claim of deduction under Section 10A and also gave the details of such claim.

5. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the company had, in fact, been wound up on 15.11.2011 by virtue of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, we are not examining that aspect of the matter inasmuch as this petition can be disposed of on the simple point as to whether the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure of the material facts necessary for its assessment or not.

6. As mentioned above, on the issuance of the n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document