Txa-3-14 v. Income-Tax Officer (2007) 158 Taxman 182 (Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL No. 3 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax,“Aaykar Bhavan”, Patto, Panaji, Goa. … Appellant V e r s u s M/s Dukle Construction,Mahalaxmi Chambers,18[th] June Road, Panaji – Goa. … Respondent Ms. Asha A. Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. D. E. Robinson, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS &Z. A. HAQ, JJ. Date : 8 th April, 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Z. A. HAQ, J.) Heard Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Advocate for the Appellant. 2.This Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 79/PNJ/2012 and CO No. 11/PNJ/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) on 14.06.2013 allowing the cross objections filed by the Assessee and holding that the Appeal filed by the Revenue vide I.T.A.T. No. 79/PNJ/2012 is rendered infructuous. The questions of law raised by the Appellants are as follows : A.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding that re-opening of the assessment is bad in law, under the facts and circumstances of the case ? B.The Hon'ble ITAT erred in holding that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 only due to change of opinion, which is actually not correct as the AO has not discussed at all in the original Assessment order regarding deduction u/s 80IB(10) and therefore it cannot be said that there is a change of opinion as held by the decision given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Techspan India (P) Ltd vs. Income-Tax Officer (2007) 158 Taxman 182 (Delhi). C.whether the ITAT is correct in holding that notice u/s 148 issued is bad in law since the notice issued is within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the AO is free to issue notice within four years and there is no concept of change of opinion as per the amended provision of the Act. 3.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and have examined the record with her assistance. We find that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts on the record and has given its findings which are in consonance with law. The Appellant has not been able to point out any new fact/material or information which came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which the assessment was re-opened. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a finding of fact based on cogent appreciation of the material on the record that the plot of land on which the Housing Project is undertaken if more than one acre in area and, therefore, the Assessee is eligible to claim the deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 4.We find that the impugned Order is passed on proper appreciation of the material on the record and does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed. 5.In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. (Z. A. HAQ, J.) (F. M. REIS, J.) arp/*