SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG. 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1253/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: 125319914 RSA 2006
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALATHI SRIDHARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SONDE R
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH L, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP (A.M0) & SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN (J.M) ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED, 207-208 T.V.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, S.K.AHIRE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 025. PAN:AABCS 8459D (APPELLANT) VS. THE ACIT, RANGE 7(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020 (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 2000-01) THE ACIT, RANGE 7(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) VS. SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED, 207-208 T.V.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, S.K.AHIRE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 025. PAN:AABCS 8459D (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND SONDE RREVENUE BY : SMT. MALATHI SRIDHARAN DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/01 /2012 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, ITA NO.1253/M/06 TO 1256/M/06 ARE APPEAL BY THE AS SESSEE WHILE ITA NO. 1419/M/06 TO ITA NO.1422/M/06 ARE APPEALS B Y THE REVENUE. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR ORDERS ALL DATED 22/11/05 OF CIT(A) VII, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 2000 -01. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 2 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APP EALS IS COMMON AND READS AS FOLLOWS: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER (A.O)S STAND IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT MAY BE DECLARED AS BAD IN LAW AND RE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF SOFTWARE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF IMPORTED SOFTWARE. AS FAR AS A.Y 1997-98 AND 1998-99 ARE CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME ON 28/11/1997 AND 27/11/1998 RESPECTIVELY. AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 22/3/99 AND 27/2/200 1 RESPECTIVELY. THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED BY ISSUE OF A NOTICE DATE D 20/10/2003. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE AC T WHERE AN ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER SEC TION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE AO WANTS TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR REASSESSMENT I.E. TO BRING TO TAX INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSE SSMENT. THUS THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y 1997 -98 AND 1998-99 HAS TO BE TESTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF THE C ONDITION CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 4. THE REASONS FOR INITIATION FOR REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IS AS FOLLOWS: IN THE CASE OF SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. SUBSTANTIAL PA YMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO FOREIGN PARTIES FOR LICENCE TO USE OF SOFTW ARE. HOWEVER AS PER ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 3 SECTION195, TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. TH EREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) OF THE I.T. ACT SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IN T HIS CONTEXT IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT IT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING J URISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAS UPHELD THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS FOR LICENCE TO USE SOFTWARE AS THEY ARE IN THE NATURE ROYALTY. DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO AY. 1 99798 THE ASSESSES HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN PARTIES FOR L ICENCE TO USE OF SOFTWARE OF AGGREGATE AMOUNT RS.1510.87 LAKHS AND T AX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 1997 -98. AS MORE THAN 4 YEARS HAVE LAPSED, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE REO PENED ONLY WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT. THE C IT-7 MUMBAI IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY ACCORD THE REQUISITE APPROVAL. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE CHANGE OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR AND THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOREIGN PARTIES FOR ALLEGED LICENCE TO USE OF SOFTWARE. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE POINTING TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING SUBMITTED THAT IN TH E LIGHT OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF GRINDWELL NORTON LTD. VS. JAGDISH PRASAD JANGID, ACIT & OTHER S, 267 ITR 673 (BOM), INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE HE LD TO BE INVALID. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OU T THAT REASONS RECORDED DO NOT ANYWHERE MENTION THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSAR Y FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING INITIATED AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND THEREFORE REQUIREMENT OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 4 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REASON S RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OUT ABOVE. PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATI ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASO NS OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY . SINCE, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING INITIATED AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS WAS CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR V ALID INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF GRINDWELL NORTION LTD. (SUPRA), THE QUESTION REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSE SSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CAME UP F OR CONSIDERATION. THE COURT AS A FACT FOUND THAT NOWHERE IN THE REASONS R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COURT HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF F OUR YEARS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE COURT FOLLOWED ITS OWN DECISION ON I DENTICAL ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, IPCA LABORATORIES VS. CIT, 251 ITR 416 (BOM) AND BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT, 183 CTR 248. 7. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, IN THE REASONS RECORDED F OR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO ALLEGA TION BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE HELD TO BE NOT P ROPER ON THIS GROUND. BESIDES THE ABOVE WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT FACT UALLY THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISC LOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT. THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE MADE PAYMENT FOR SOFTWARE AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF SOFTWARE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS TO WHETHER SUCH THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ROYALTY ON WHICH TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 5 SOURCE HAD TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO WHEN HE COMPLET ED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR AYS 97-98 AND 98-99 ARE INVALID. CONSEQUENTLY, T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT Y EARS IS HEREBY ANNULLED. 8. AS FAR AS A.Y 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 ARE CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THESE YEARS ON 17.12.199 9 AND 27.11.2000 RESPECTIVELY. AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 27.2.2001 AND 13.3.2003 RESPECTIVELY. NOTICE U/S.1 48 OF THE ACT FOR REASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10.10 .2003 FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE THEREFORE INITIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS FRO M THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OUT IN THE EARLIER PART OF TH IS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT WHEN THE AO COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN P ARTIES FOR SOFTWARE. THE AO THEREAFTER HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION1 95 OF THE ACT, TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HE THEREAFTER HAS OBSE RVED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) OF THE I.T. AC T, SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FOREIGN PARTIES AR E FOR RIGHT TO USE COPYRIGHT AND THEREFORE WOULD CONSTITUTE ROYALTY PAID TO A NON-RESIDENT AND THEREFORE TAX OUGHT TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WH ILE MAKING PAYMENTS. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 6 AS TO WHETHER THESE WERE PAYMENTS FOR LICENSE TO US E OF SOFTWARE WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE THE PAYMENT AS ROYALTY ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT OR A PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF S OFTWARE WHICH WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT WAS A MATTER WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO WHEN HE COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A) OF THE ACT OF T HE PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS FOR SOFTWARE. THOUGH THERE IS NO DIS CUSSION IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN THIS REGARD, SINCE THE ORDER OF ASSES SMENT IS PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, SUCH A PRESUMPTION THAT THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DRAWN. IN THE REA SONS FOR REOPENING THE AO HAS MENTIONED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING AS THE DECI SION OF LD. CIT(A) HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF ANOTHER SOFTWA RE MANUFACTURER LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS M ANDATORY FOR THAT ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS F OR SOFTWARE APPARENTLY ON THE PREMISE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR A LICENCE T O USE SOFTWARE AND WERE IN THE NATURE ROYALTY. IN THE REASONS RECORDED TH E AO DOES NOT SAY AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF LUCEN T TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO OR AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOL VED IN THESE APPEALS. THEREAFTER THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEARS (RELEVANT TO AY. 1997-98 TO 00-01)MA DE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN PARTIES FOR LICENCE TO USE OF SOFTWARE WITHOUT DEDU CTING TAX AT SOURCE AND THEREFORE HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT AS FAR AS A.Y 1999-2000 & 2000-01 ARE CONCERNED THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BASED PURELY ON A CHANGE OF OPINION. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 256 ITR ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 7 PG.1(FB). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 143(3) HAD BEEN COMPLETED. LATER ON THE AO NOTICED THAT CERTA IN EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND HE, THEREFORE, INITIATED R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE HON BLE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REAS SESSMENT CANNOT BE INITIATED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. THE COURT H ELD THAT WHEN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS PASSED IT HAD TO BE PRESUME D THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE AO SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURE LY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT IF AO IS P ERMITTED TO DO SO THEN THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING POWER OF REVIEW TO THE AO WH ICH IS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN LAW. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THERE SHOULD B E SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO AND THAT THE AO SH OULD FORM REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION WHICH HE H AS RECEIVED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 561. TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: PRIOR TO DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, RE OPENING COULD BE DONE UNDER TWO CONDITIONS AND FULFILLMENT OF THE SA ID CONDITIONS ALONE CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE AO TO MAKE A BACK ASS ESSMENT, BUT IN S. 147 (W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1989), THEY ARE GIVEN A GO B Y AND ONLY ONE CONDITION HAS REMAINED, VIZ., THAT WHERE THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, CONFERS JURISDI CTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, POST 1ST APRIL, 1989, PO WER TO REOPEN IS MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER, ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH, S. 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE AO TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPE N. THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REA SSESS SHOULD ALSO TO BE KEPT IN MIND. THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FU LFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRE-CONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPIN ION IS REMOVED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ONE MUST T REAT THE CONCEPT ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 8 OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE AC. HENCE, AFTER 1ST APRIL, 1989, AO HAS POWER TO REOPEN, PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF. UNDER THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, PARLIAMENT NOT ONLY DELETED THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT ALSO INSERTED THE WORD OPINION IN S. 147. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF RE-PRESENTATIONS FROM THE COMPANIES AGAI NST OMISSION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE, PARLIAMENT RE-INTRODUCED THE SAID EXPRESSION AND DELETED THE WORD OPINION ON THE GR OUND THAT IT WOULD VEST ARBITRARY POWERS IN THE AC. APPEALS ARE THEREF ORE DISMISSED-CIT VS. KALVINATOR OF INIDA OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 174 CT R (DEL)(FB) 617 AND CIT VS. EICHER LTD. (2007) 213 CTR (DEL) 57 AFFIRME D. 12. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTE M LTD. VS. ACIT 295 ITR 333 (BOM). IN THE SAID DECISIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10A IN THE RETURN FILED AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ACCEPTED IT AFTER RAISING A SPECIFIC QUE RY AS TO THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A AND DID NOT S ET OFF THE LOSSES OF OTHER UNITS NOT ELIGIBLE AFTER ACCEPTING THE ASSESS EES EXPLANATION BY ORDER DATED MARCH 23, 2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2. HOWEVER, THE SUCCESSOR ON THE BASIS OF THE VIEW TAKEN FOR A LATE R YEAR ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON MARCH 13, 2006 WITHIN THE FOUR YEAR TIME LIMIT. HE HAD GIVEN AS HIS REASON NOT ONLY THE TREATMENT IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEAR, BUT ALSO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE REVENUES FAVOUR IN NAVIN BHARAT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. DEPUTY CIT [2004] 270 ITR (AT) 1 (BOM) WHER EIN THE QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS AS TO WHETHER FOR THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR, A LOSS INCURRED IN A UNIT THAT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 10A COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS FROM OTHER UN ITS WHICH WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH EXEMPTION. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SECTION 10A WAS A PROVISION GRANTING A BENEFIT AND IF AN ASSESSEE CHOOSES NOT TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT FOR SOME REASON, THE BENEFIT COULD NOT BE FOISTED ON H IM. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 9 13. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT HELD IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THERE COULD BE NO REASSESSMENT EITHER ON THE BASIS OF A SUBSEQUENT DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OWN INTERPRETATION. IN E ITHER CASE, IT WOULD BE A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, SO THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT VALID. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAD HELD THAT PAYMENT FOR SOFTWARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID CASE WAS TREATED AS ROYALTY AND THEREFORE THERE WAS OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE P AYEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING PAYMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HONBL;E GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF AUSTIN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. VS. JCIT, 312 ITR 7 0 (GUJ). IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT WAS ISSUE D AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE REASON S RECORDED FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE REOPENED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE BASI S OF SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THOUGH IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE RESPONDENT HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, APPARE NTLY, THE SAID STATEMENT DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF ALL MATERIAL FACTS HAD NOT BEEN FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOS ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AC TO FRAME THE ASSES SMENT UNDER S. 143(3) BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FA CT, THE LAW AS IT THEN ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 10 STOOD WAS UNDERSTOOD IDENTICALLY BOTH BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE AC. MERELY BECAUSE SUBSEQUENTLY THE APEX COURT PRONOUNC ED THE LAW TO BE OTHERWISE, ON THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF THE INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION, THE CLAIM COULD NOT BE TERMED TO BE EITHER LACKING IN MATERIAL PARTICULARS OR COULD NOT BE TERMED TO BE UNTRUE. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THE MATERI AL FACTS WERE FULLY DISCLOSED AND NO FALSE FACTS WERE STATED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE. THE REASONS RECORDED THEMSELVES SHOW THAT THE AC HA S CHANGED HIS OPINION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT RE NDERED BY THE APEX COURT. THUS, THIS IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINI ON BY THE AC AND NOT A CASE OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE. THE PRESENT IS A CASE WHERE THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HAS ALREADY ELA PSED. HENCE, EVEN IF ONE PROCEEDS ON A FOOTING THAT THE APEX COURT JUDGM ENT CONSTITUTES INFORMATION YET IF THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HAS EXP IRED, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE PROVI SO TO S. 147 ARE SHOWN TO BE FULFILLED, NO ACTION CAN BE INITIATED F OR REASSESSMENT. REFERENCE TO PROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 2 TO S. 147 ALSO CANNOT ASSIST THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE P ROVISO ITSELF INDICATES THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONSCIOUSLY LAID DOWN A TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION T O ESCAPED INCOME CAN BE INITIATED, AND BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION, EVEN IF INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IF THE REQUIRED COND ITIONS ENUMERATED IN THE PROVISO ARE NOT SHOWN TO EXIST, N O ACTION CAN BE INITIATED UNDER S. 147 REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT INCOME MAY HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER S. 148 FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION IS HEREBY QUASHED. 15. THE LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE ST AND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO QUESTION WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOREIGN PA RTIES FOR SOFTWARE AMOUNTS TO ROYALTY AND AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE H AD TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENTS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OP INION EXPRESSED BY THE AO. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WERE VALIDLY INITIATED. THE LD. D.R HOWEVER POINTED OUT IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. , WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE AO IN THE REASONS RECORDED WAS RENDERED PRI OR TO OR AFTER THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE VARIOUS AS SESSMENT YEARS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS AGAIN SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. D.R AS PER PROVISIONS ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 11 OF SECTION 40(A) OF THE ACT, WHERE THERE IS A FAILU RE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT COVERED BY SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT, THE DED UCTION OF SUCH PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOM E HAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WAS VALID. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE PROCEEDINGS FOR R EASSESSMENT FOR A.Y 1999- 2000 AND 2000-01 HAVE BEEN INITIATED PURELY ON A CH ANGE OF OPINION. ADMITTEDLY THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SEC TION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THERE IS, THEREFORE, A PRESUMPTION THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE WHICH THE AO HAS REFERRED TO IN THE REASONS R ECORDED FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MAT ERIAL BASED ON WHICH THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FOREIGN PARTIES FOR SOFTWARE WAS A PAYMENT FOR LICENCE TO U SE THE SOFTWARE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY CI T(A) IN ANOTHER CASE WOULD BE MATERIAL FOR THE AO TO FORM A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IF T HE AO IS PERMITTED TO RESORT TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS AS S ET OUT IN THE REASONS RECORDED THEN THAT AMOUNT TO CONFERRING POWER OF RE VIEW TO THE AO. IN THIS REGARD, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD BE RE LEVANT. 17. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS (SUPRA) WERE, THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10A IN THE RETURN FILED AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ACCEPTED IT AFTER RAISING A SPECIFIC QUERY AS TO THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A AND DID NOT SET OFF THE LOSSES OF OTHER UNITS NOT ELIGIBLE AFTER ACCEPT ING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BY ORDER DATED MARCH 23, 2004 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001- ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 12 02. HOWEVER, THE SUCCESSOR ON THE BASIS OF THE VIEW TAKEN FOR A LATER YEAR ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON MARCH 13, 2006 W ITHIN THE FOUR YEAR TIME LIMIT. HE HAD GIVEN AS HIS REASON NOT ONLY THE TREA TMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, BUT ALSO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE REVENUES FAVOUR IN NAVIN BHARAT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. DEPUTY CIT [2004] 270 ITR (AT) 1 (BOM). 18. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON A CHANGE OF OPINION. THE FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATIO N SYSTEM LTD.(SUPRA) WOULD BE RELEVANT: IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SECOND ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PREVIOUS ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT IS POSSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF FINALITY TO A QUESTION OF LAW, THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS COULD TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. WOULD THAT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT BECAUSE THE SECOND ASSESSING OFFICE R HOLDS A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS. THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IS THE SAME. THE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE FORM. ON THESE FACTS BECAUSE THE SECOND ASSESSI NG OFFICER DIFFERS WITH THE OPINION OF THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION WITHOUT ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL MATERIAL , IS HE ENTITLED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH A BELIEF WOULD AMOUNT TO A MERE CHANG E OF OPINION. THE REMEDY IN CASE LIKE THIS WOULD BE TO INVOKE OR RESO RT TO THE OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IF THE INCOME-TA X OFFICER DOES NOT POSSESS THE POWER OF REVIEW, HE CANNOT ACHIEVE THA T OBJECT BY INITIATING A PROCEEDING FOR REASSESSMENT OR BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE. A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION ON AN INTERPRETA TION OF A PROVISION BY ITSELF WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE, CANNOT GIVE RISE TO REASON TO BELIEVE. THE POWER OF REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CONFE RRED BY THE LEGISLATURE NOT WITH THE OBJECT OF ENABLING THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER TO REOPEN THE FULL DECLARATION MADE AGAINST THE REVEN UE IN RESPECT OF QUESTIONS RAISED THAT AROSE DIRECTLY FOR CONSIDERAT ION IN THE EARLIER ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 13 PROCEEDINGS. IF THAT WERE NOT THE LEGAL POSITION, I T WOULD RESULT IN PLACING UNRESTRICTED POWERS OF REVIEW IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES DEPENDING ON THEIR CHANGING MOODS. THE OTHER REASON GIVEN FOR REASON TO BELIEVE WAS THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NAVIN BHARAT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2004] 270 ITR (AT) 1 (BOM). THIS CASE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IN AN OTHER CASE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2384 OF 200 6 (SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. V. ASST. CIT [2007] 293 IT R 548 (BOM)) WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED ON JULY 3, 2007. THIS IS HOW THE C OURT EXPLAINED THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT (PAGE 552) : ON THESE FACTS, THE LEARNED THIRD MEMBER HELD THAT A PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE TO A DISADVANTAGE AND AN OPTION CANNOT BE COME AN OBLIGATION AND IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO AVA IL OF THE BENEFIT ENTITLED IN THAT RESPECT FOR SOME REASONS, THAT BENEFIT CANNOT BE FORCED UPON HIM. IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION AS TO WHET HER LOSSES SUFFERED BEING UNDISPUTEDLY COVERED BY SECTION 10A AS IT THEN STOOD COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF OTHER BU SINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR VICE VERSA. THE DECISION IN NAVIN BHARAT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2004] 270 ITR (AT) 1 (BOM), THEREFORE, BY ITSELF OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CHANGE OF OPINION AS TO THE TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION, COULD NOT ALSO GIVE RISE FOR REASON TO BELIEVE. IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE CLEAR THAT BOTH THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE, EITHER BASED ON THE OPINIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NAVIN BHARAT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2004] 270 ITR (AT) 1 (BOM) OR ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS, WOULD BE NON-EXI STING AND/OR MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION. THIS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE RE ASONS TO BELIEVE. 19. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS, IN OUR VIEW CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. WE, T HEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y 1999 -2000 IS BASED PURELY ON A CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 14 WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AFORESAID TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, ARE ALSO INVALID AN D THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THESE YEARS ARE ALSO HEREBY ANNULLED. ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 20. AS FAR AS THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE CONCER NED THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE O F ROYALTY AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY MAKING DISALLOWAN CE UNDER SECTION 40(A) OF THE ACT BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL S. SINCE THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE INVAL ID AND THE ORDERS OF REASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON MERITS. THESE APPEAL S ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 20 TH DAY OF JAN.2012. SD/- SD/- (P.M.JAGTAP ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 20 TH JAN.2012. COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RL BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1253 TO 1256/MUM/2006 ITA NO.1419 TO 1422/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEARS.1997 -98 TO 2000-01) 15 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 09/01/2012 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10/01/2012 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. A PPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER