IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  13.12.2010 
.
 Present: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Advocate for the Appellant. 
 Mr. Prakash Kr., Advocate for the Respondent. 
.
 + ITA No.1956/2010. 
.
.
.
 The return for the relevant accounting year was filed at an income of 
 Rs.1,70,42,783/- on 31.10.2001. The same was processed and assessment was framed 
 under Section 142(3) on 24.03.2003 at an income of Rs.1,80,80,973/-. 
 The case was reopened under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act 
 on 27.03.2008. Recording revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction under 
 Section 80HHC on the amount of profits of Rs.17,11,322/- allowed as deduction 
 under Section 80-1A of the Act, which is not allowable as per provisions of 
 Section 80-1A(9). Thus there was excess deduction of Rs.7,56,140/- under Section 
 80HHC. It was further noted by the AO that while computing deduction under 
 Section 80-1A, assessee had not reduced the amount of duty drawback and DEPB 
 receipts. 
 The appeal of the assessee, however, was allowed by the CIT(A) and the 
 CIT(A) held that the notice under Section 148 for reopening of the proceedings 
 was invalid and on this basis, reassessment proceedings was quashed. This order 
 of the CIT(A) is upheld by the ITAT, inter alia, recorded as under:- 
 :2: 
 ?4.2 A reading of the above makes it clear that the reopening has been 
 done only on the basis of facts which are already on record and submitted by the 
 assessee.  The assessee had clearly given the details of deduction u/s 80 HHC 
 and u/s 80 IA and u/s 80 IA which was being claimed.  Hence, it is clear that 
 there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the materials. 
 Hence in the above situations reassessment cannot be said to permissible.  This 
 view draws support from Hon?ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in  the case 
 of Wel Intertrade P Ltd. and another  (formerly Wel Intertrade Ltd.) vs. ITO 
 reported in 308 ITR and JSRS Udyog Ltd and Another vs. ITO reported in 313 ITR 
 321. 
 5.       In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, in our 
 considered opinion the reopening under Section 147 is not justified.  Hence, we 
 confirm the ld. CIT (A)s order quashing the assessment on the ground of lack of 
 jurisdiction itself.? 
.
 It is clear from the above that the case was reopened after the expiry of 
 four years of the passing of the assessment orders. On the other hand, it is 
 found that there was no concealment of any particular on the part of the 
 assessee, but it had made full disclosure of all the relevant materials touching 
 upon this issue. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal 
 has rightly held that notice under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act issued 
 by the Assessing Officer was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was 
 thus invalid. No question of law arises. 
 Dismissed.                                                      A.K. 
 SIKRI, J. 
.
 SURESH KAIT, J. 
 DECEMBER 13, 2010/hk 
.
.
 #128