M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities and as regards the contention of the assessee that before the ld. CIT(A) the date of furnishing the submission was fixed on 22.02.2023 but the order has been passed on 20.02.2023, the ld. DR submitted let the assessee be given made.

In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee should be given justice before the bench as the material is already available on record and there is no new evidence or arguments to be placed on record and therefore, the assessee seek justice before the bench rather to send back before the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also gone through the judicial decision relied upon by both the parities to drive home to their contentions. The bench noted that the in the original assessment proceeding the issue related to the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA has been verified and the assessee has placed on record all the details necessary to claim the said deduction vide point no. 5 of letter dated 02.10.2012 (APB-8 to13). Thus, in the original assessment proceedings the claim has been considered by the ld. AO. The bench also persuaded the reasons recorded for reopening of the case of the assessee (APB-20) wherein while re-opening the case no new material placed on recorded and the reasons so recorded shows that the same has been re- noted that to support the contentions so raised for re-opening of the case the ld. AR of the assessee heavy relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd. 449 ITR 171(SC) wherein the apex court has held that “It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions u/s. 148 of the income tax act for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied. Having gone through the reasons recorded for reopening, we are of the opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years or not satisfied. The assessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material facts. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice under section 148 of the income tax act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.”