-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.971 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20 : Appellant v/s M/s. Singnora Exports : Respondent Mr. R. Asokan for Appellant None for respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 18.9.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In the above appeal the learned counsel for the appellant seeking to raise following question of law. The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of sec. 147 r.w.s. 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in allowing deductions u/s. 80 HHC and holding that the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid. -2- . We have perused the Tribunal’s judgment dt. 15.11.2007. Perused paragraph 5. Tribunal in paragraph 5 has observed as under. After hearing both the sides, we find there is no dispute to the fact that the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 25.2.2002 for the assessment year 1997-98 and notice under section 148 was issued on 29.3.2004 which is after four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. We find there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment and no new fact has come to the notice of the AO before issuing notice under section 148 which can be attributable to the assessee for such non discloser. Therefore, proviso to section 147 is clearly applicable to the present case. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) treating the notice as invalid and thereby cancelling the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed. . From the above it is clear that the CIT(A) has correctly held that reopening of the assessment is totally unjustified which finding of fact with which the Tribunal has concurred. We do not find any substantial law involved in the above. Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)