VALSON DYEING BLEACHING & PRINTING WORKS, MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2440/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71169 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH RANJAN PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A K LAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Period of limitation; Difference of opinion; Time period of passing order; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80HHC; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2440 & 2441/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 & 2004-05) VALSON DYEING & BLEACHING WORKS DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1) LBS MARG, OPP. DREAM MALL C-10, 1ST FLOOR, B.K.C. BHANDUP (W), MUMBAI 400078 VS. BANDRA, MUMBAI 400051 PAN - AACFV3424D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.K. LAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJESH RANJAN PRASAD DATE OF HEARING: 18.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.09.2013 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THEY PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. THE ISSUES URGED IN BOTH THE APPEALS BEING IDENTICAL WE PROCEED TO DISP OSE OF THESE APPEALS BY A COMBINED ORDER. 2. IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY RAISING AN ADDITIONAL GR OUND, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE REOPENING OF THIS ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IS INVALID AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE. 3. ADMITTEDLY, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 22.02.2006 AND RECKONED FROM THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2003-04 THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT COMME NCED AFTER FOUR YEARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DIS CLOSED ALL THE FACTS TRULY AND FULLY DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE RESORTING TO REASSESSMENT, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF C HANGE OF OPINION, IS NOT ITA NO. 2440 & 2441/MUM/2012 VALSON DYEING & BLEACHING WORKS 2 PERMISSIBLE. IN FACT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY S HOWS THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80HHC WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRIKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS LTD. 246 ITR 429. BUT THE AO SEEKS TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT REVERSED THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEM ENT [291 ITR 308 (SC)] AND HENCE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ITSELF CONSTITUTES INFORMATION AND HENCE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VALID. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES (INDIA) LTD. REPORTED IN 210 TAXMAN 278 TO SUBMIT T HAT SUBSEQUENT REVERSAL OF LEGAL DECISION BY JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT DOES NOT AUTHORISE THE DEPARTMENT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PARTICULARL Y IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEA RS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ARE INVALID SINCE IT IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION AND HENCE THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. SI NCE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE HELD TO BE INVALID IN LAW, IT IS NO T NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE OTHER ISSUES URGED BEFORE US. APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 7. IN SO FAR AS A.Y. 2004-05 IS CONCERNED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND HENCE THE AO CAN SAID TO BE JUSTIFIE D IN LAW TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HE DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE US. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2440 & 2441/MUM/2012 VALSON DYEING & BLEACHING WORKS 3 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IS TREATED A S ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/ (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 36, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 23, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.