Andhra Bank, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1943/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 194322514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: SRHI S ANANTHAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 ANDHRA BANK LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AAACN7323G VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SRHI S. ANANTHAM & SMT. LALITHA RAMESWARAN REVENUE BY : SHRI P. SOMA SEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 03-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 -10-2013 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M.: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SE PARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 08/09/2011 FO R THE AYS 2002- 03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ASSE SSEE CONTESTS THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ASS ESSMENT IN GROUND NO. 2 AND MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN GROUND NO. 3. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS O F INCOME ORIGINALLY, AND ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) OF THE IT A CT WERE COMPLETED. THEREAFTER, AFTER THE END OF THE FOUR YEARS FROM TH E END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO BY RECORDING THE REASONS U/S 147 OF TH E ACT, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND AS SESSMENTS U/S 2 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WERE COMPLE TED ON RESPECTIVE DATES. THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, ARE AS UNDER: FOR AY 2002-03 SL.NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME 29-10-02 2 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF IT ACT 31-03-04 3 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 20-02-09 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF IT ACT. 29-12-09 FOR AY 2003-04 SL.NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME 25-11-03 2 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF IT ACT 30-12-05 3 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 15-03-10 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF IT ACT. 229-10-10 FOR AY 2004-05 SL.NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME 30-10-04 2 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF IT ACT 30-12-05 3 NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 15-03-10 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF IT ACT. 08-09-11 3. THE AO RECORDED THE REASONS BEFORE ISSUING OF NO TICE U/S 148 FOR AY 2002-03 ARE AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED FOR THE AY 2002-03 ON 31/03/2004 AND ASSESSED INCOME WAS ARRIV ED AT RS. 272,92,17,358/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 211,15,63,050/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, CONSEQUENTLY TO THE CIT, HYDERABAD-I ORDER U/S 263, THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS A RRIVED AT RS. 294,44,36,400/- VIDE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 01/05/2006., THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS FURTHER REVISED TO RS. 265,44,44,753/- ON ACCOUNT OF PASSING OF CONSEQUENT IAL ORDER DATED 13/08/2007 TO GIVE EFFECT TO C(T(A) ORDER AGA INST ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3). SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE BOARDS LETTER IN REFERENCE NO. DY.NO. 1533-R/DIR(ITA.1)/2006, DATED 28/01/2006 REGARDING REVISED RBI GUIDELINES ON CLASSIFICATION AND VALUATION OF I NVESTMENTS, 3 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. REVISED GUIDELINES WERE ISSUED BY RBI VIDE CIRCULAR NO. DBOP/PB.BC32/21.04.048/2000-01, DATED 16/10/2000 ST ATING THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT PORTION OF THE BANKS (IN CLUDING SLR SECURITIES AND NON-SLR SECURITIES) IS REQUIRED TO B E CLASSIFIED UNDER THE FOLLOWING 3 CATEGORIES: ITEM NO. 1 HELD TO MATURITY ITEM NO. 2 AVAILABLE FOR SALE ITEM NO. 3 HELD FOR TRADING THE REVISED GUIDELINES WERE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSE E BANK AS APPLICABLE FOR AY 2001-02 ON WARDS, ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSEE BANK MADE A CLAIM FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF THE SECURITIES CLAIMED UNDER AVAILABLE FOR SALE/HELD FO R TRADING AND CLAIMED AMORTIZATION ON HELD TO MATURITY CATEGORY O F SECURITIES FOR THE AY 2002-03. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF CBDT CIR CULAR NO. 665 AND REVISED RBI GUIDELINES AS STATED AS ABOVE A ND HAS ELABORATELY BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE STATED BOAR DS LETTER, IS EMERGED AS FOLLOWS: I) NO DEPRECIATION IS TO BE PROVIDED FOR INVESTMENT S CLASSIFIED UNDER THE CATEGORY HELD TO MATURITY. II) VALUATION OF INVESTMENTS CLASSIFIED UNDER CATEG ORIES AVAILABLE OF SALE AND HELD FOR TRADING IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE SCRIP-WISE AND THEREAFTER DEPRECIATION/APPRECIATION IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY AND ONLY NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FOR AND NET APPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE IGNORED. IN THE CASE OF M/S ANDHRA BANK FOR THE AY 2002-03, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AMORTIZATION ON HELD TO MATURIT Y CATEGORY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, ON THE ISSU E OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE STIPULA TED GUIDELINES AS STATED AT ITEM NO. 2 NEEDS TO BE VERI FIED AND ALLOWED AS PER CORRECT COMPUTATION ON VERIFICATION O THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION ON CATEGORIE S AVAILABLE FOR SALE, HELD FOR TRADING HAS TO BE RECOMPUTED AND NEE DS TO BE ALLOWED CORRECTLY FOR THE AY 2002-03. APART FROM THE ABOVE, AS PER THE REVISED GUIDELINE S, THE ASSESSEE IS REVERSING THE UNREALIZED INTEREST ON NP AS WHILE RECOGNIZING THE INTEREST INCOME FOR THE AY 2001-02 ON WARDS I.E., TO SAY THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS ACC OUNTED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON ACCRUAL BASIS WAS REVERSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE SAME HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE AUDIT FOR THE AY 2002-03 THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5.16 CRORES HA S BEEN REDUCED AS UNREALIZED INTEREST INCOME ON NPAS FOR T HE AY 4 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. 2002-03 AND SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE REVISED RBI GUIDELINES THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS ALLOWABLE FOR SECURITIES UNDER AFTS/HFT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTLY ARRIVED AS PER THE CORRECT COMPUTATION AND THE BALANCE NEEDS T O BE DISALLOWED ON RECONCILIATION. ALSO, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF REVERSAL OF INTEREST ON NPAS OF RS. 5.16 CRORES NEE DS TO BE VERIFIED AND IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE A S IT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF B ROKEN PERIOD INTEREST NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED AND IF CLAI MED THE SAME NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AS THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABL E EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, DURING THE YEAR AS SEEN FROM THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS. 6.50 CRORES FOR SWITCHING OVER TO 90 DAYS NORMS FOR IDEN TIFICATION OF NPAS AND THIS PROVISION WAS CLAIMED TO BE PART OF A SSESSEES CLAIM U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF RS. 112.54 CRORES. THIS BE ING A PROVISION ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION NPAS AND SAME NEE DS TO BE DISALLOWED AS IT IS PROVISIONS TOWARDS STANDARD ASS ETS DUE TO SWITCH OVER TO 90 DAYS NORMS. HENCE, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AS IT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE PROVISION U/S 36 (1)(VIIA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE F OR THE AY 2002-03 NEEDS TO BE REVISED WITH THE PROVISION U /S 147 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE ABO VE ISSUES FOR THE AY 2002-03 AND IT IS THEREFORE PROPOSED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2002-03 FOR BRINGING THE INCO ME THAT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO TAX. 4. SIMILAR REASONS WERE RECORDED IN OTHER YEARS ALS O. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE T HE ADDITION ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE OF UNREALIZED INTEREST ON NPAS IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTESTE D THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 AS THERE IS NO FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND IT ALSO CONTESTED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE 5 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. AO BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF UNREALIZED INTEREST ON NPAS, WHICH WAS ADJUSTED IN THE INTEREST INCOME OFFERED DURING THE YEAR ON THE REASON THAT THESE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AT THE TIM E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE LAW PERMITS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SU CH UNREALIZED INCOME BASED ON THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HER PREDECES SOR IN AY 2001- 02, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER , THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF REOPENING CONTE STED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL, MAY BE ON THE REASON THAT THE S AME ISSUES WERE CONSIDERED IN AY 2001-02, WHICH SHE FOLLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION. 8. APART FROM EXPLAINING THE ISSUE AND TAKING US TH ROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST ON NPAS AS PER THE GUIDELINES, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN AY 2001-02 HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 95/HYD/2010 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 04/04/2013. ON SIMILAR ISSUE, THE ITAT ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT REOPENING IS WITH OUT JURISDICTION. 9. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. THE FACTS IN THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE SIMIL AR TO THE FACTS EXISTED IN AY 2001-02 WHEREIN ALSO ASSESSMENT WAS R EOPENED FOR CONSIDERING THE SAME ISSUES AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF ASSESSMENT 6 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. YEAR. THE ITAT B BENCH, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 04/0 4/2013 HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 1 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN COMPLETED. OF THE THREE ISSUES, THE COD HAD NOT GR ANTED PERMISSION TO THE REVENUE TO PROSECUTE ONE OF THE I SSUES VIZ., REVERSAL OF INTEREST INCOME RECOGNISED EARLIER, IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. EVENTHOUGH IT IS NOW RECOGNISED THAT APPR OVAL OF THE COD IS NOT NECESSARY FOR PROSECUTION OF APPEAL, THE BASIS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF COD APPROVAL, VIZ., REDUCTION IN LITIGATION AMONG GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS IS STILL VALID. IF THE COD HAD APPLIED THEIR MIND AND REFUSED PERMISSION TO THE RE VENUE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ISSUES, THE REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO. IT IS AN INTER-SE ARRANGEM ENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS/ GOVERNMENT OWNED UNDERT AKINGS. HENCE THE ISSUE REGARDING REVERSAL OF INTEREST INCO ME RECOGNISED OFFERED FOR INCOME NO LONGER SURVIVES. E VEN OTHERWISE ALL THE MATERIALS WERE BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO HAS NOW SOUGHT TO DISALLOW THE REVERSED INCOME ON THE B ASIS OF THE MATERIALS ALREADY BEFORE HIM. IT IS CLEARLY A CHANG E OF OPINION. 14. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ISSUE VIZ., BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST, THIS HAS BEEN A SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION AND NU MEROUS DECISIONS. WHENEVER SECURITIES ARE PURCHASED, THE P URCHASE PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST UPTO THE DATE OF PUR CHASE. AS INTEREST EARNED FROM THE SECURITIES ARE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME, INTEREST FOR THE BROKEN PERIOD INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SECURITIES ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDU CTION. (AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION VS. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 601 BOM. CIT VS. NEDUNGADI BANK LTD . (2003) 264 ITR 545 KER).THAT BEING SO, THE ALLOWANCE OF BR OKEN PERIOD INTEREST AS A DEDUCTION IN CASES OF SECURITIES PURC HASED HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY VARIOUS COURTS. THEREFORE IN ALLOWI NG THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO CAN NOT SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY ERROR. THE PARTICULA RS ABOUT THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST CLAIMED WAS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS HE HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT FOR DISALLOWING. THE AO HAD NOT COME ACROSS ANY FRESH M ATERIAL WHICH WILL LEAD HIM TO THE SATISFACTION THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE THE PRESENT REOPENING ON THIS ISSUE IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 15. THE THIRD ISSUE, VIZ., DEPRECIATION ON SECURITI ES, IS ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF NUMEROUS DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF BANKS. ONCE THE INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES ARE MADE WITH A V IEW TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF LIQUIDITY, THE SECURITIES CONSTITUTE STOCK IN TRADE AND VALUING THEM AT MARKE T OR COST WHICHEVER IS LOWER IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING. THE 7 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. APEX COURT HAS UPHELD THE SAME IN THE CASE OF UNIT ED COMMERCIAL BANK V. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC). THE AOS ATTEMPT TO CLASSIFY THEM AT HELD TO MARKET OR READY FOR SALE ETC IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION. THERE HAS BEEN NO FR ESH FACTS OR EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE COME TO CONCLUSION THAT INCOME HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT. 16. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF UNREALISED INTEREST, WE FIND THAT THE SAME ARE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION INDIA LTD. , 205 ITR 75 (DEL.) AND UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT, 16 TAXMAN. COM 304 (MUM.) 17. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) IN RESPECT OF DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE N ON-RURAL BRANCHES OF THE ASESSEES BANK, IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CATHELIC SYRIAN BANK VS. CIT [2012] 18 TAXMAN.COM 282 (SC) THUS IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NOTHING NEW WHICH HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). THE ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER WHEN CALLED UPON. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. NOW, ON A MERE RELOOK AND REVIEW, THE OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE PROVISO TO S ECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT REQUIRES A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A PROPER RETURN. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, NO SUCH CASE IS MADE OUT ON THE RECORD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, FROM THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REOPENING IS BASED ON A MERE RELOOK OF THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE BEFORE T HE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS NOT POINTED OUT WHAT WAS THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED FOR MAKING THE ASSES SMENT. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT REOPENING AFTER 4 YEARS FROM END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SEC 143(3) HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURN ISHED FULL FACTS, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER PROVISO TO SEC 147( 1). THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER CASES SUPPORT THIS VIEW: CIT VS M/S KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED 320 ITR 561 SC MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. V. JCIT 347 ITR 546 GUJ. NYK LINE (INDIA) LTD. V. DCIT (NO. 2) 346 ITR 361 B OM. 8 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. 18. THE AO HAS SUBSTANTIATED REOPENING STATING THAT THAT DISALLOWANCES ON THE ABOVE ISSUES HAVE BEEN MADE AN D WERE ADJUDICATED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS NOT AS IF THERE WAS ANY FACTUAL AND TANGIBLE MATERIAL REGARDING THESE I SSUES WHICH CAME TO LIGHT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS ONLY A CONCLUSION BASED ON A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. THUS THE AO HAD MERELY CHANGED HIS CONCLUSION, ON T HE SAME SET OF FACTS AVAILABLE FOR THIS YEAR. LEGAL CONCLUS ION ARRIVED AT ON SIMILAR SET OFF FACTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR CAN NOT BE THE REASON FOR REOPENING. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION T HAT REOPENING IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT DECISIO N OF THE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT. COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. ITO 336 ITR 1 96 GUJ AUSTIN ENGINEERING CO LTD V CIT 312 ITR 70 GUJ CIT V. BAER SHOES (INDIA) PVT. LTD 331 ITR 435 MA D. 19. THUS A DIFFERENT LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF A PROV ISION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF REOPENING FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 20. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE INVALID. AS WE HAVE HELD TH AT THE ASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WE ARE NOT DEAL ING WITH OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS. 11. EVEN THOUGH IN AY 2001-02, REOPENING WAS CONSID ERED ON OTHER ISSUES ALSO, THE ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISALL OWANCE OF UNREALIZED INTEREST WAS CONSIDERED IN PARA 16 IN THE ABOVE ORD ER. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREIN WILL EQUALLY APPLY TO THE FACTS I N THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN NOT BE REOPENED WHEN THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E IN FURNISHING THE PARTICULARS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THAT TOO ALL THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE REASONS FOR REOPENING A LSO DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULLY A ND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. THE P RINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF HINDUST AN UNILEVER LTD., 137 TAXMAN 479 WILL EQUALLY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) HAS 9 ITA NOS. 1943, 1944 & 1945/HYD/2011 ANDHRA BANK. BEEN MADE FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION C AN BE TAKEN U/S 147 AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE REL EVANT AY, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESS MENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON FOR FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMEN T FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOW N BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE WILL EQUALLY APPLY TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, REOPENING U/S 147 IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. 12. EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE T HE OTHER GROUND, THE FACT IS THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE ISSUE IS IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2001-02 (SUPR A). ACCORDINGLY, EVEN ON MERITS, THERE IS NO REASON TO REOPEN THE AS SESSMENT AND, HENCE, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF RE-ASSESSMENT. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONS IDERATION ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-10-2013. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMA KOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 4 TH OCTOBER, 2013. KV COPY TO:- 1) ANDHRA BANK, 5-9-11, HEAD OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDE RABAD 500 001. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD,. 3) CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT-I, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T. A.T., HYDERABAD.