SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

ITA 3627/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A DHYANI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Wrong claim; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ./ I.T.A. NO 3627/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK, BUILDING NO.11, 5 TH FLOOR, 167 GURUHAR GOVINDJI MARG, ANDHERI-GHATKOPER LINK ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400 093. / VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, ROOM NO.411, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACS 7249C ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A. DHYANI / DATE OF HEARING : 04/02/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/02/2016 $% / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, MUMBAI (HE REINAFTER CALLED AS THE CIT(A)) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN REOPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, NULL AND V OID AND BAD IN LAW AS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED FULL, CORRECT AND COMPLETE PART ICULARS OF ITS INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.16,828,559/ - ( IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOM E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH LOSS HAS BEEN SET O FF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A SU M OF RS.64,18,653/- COMPRISING OF RS.37,00,000/- BEING FRINGE BENEFIT T AX, RS.4,50,000/- BEING WEALTH-TAX AND RS.22,68,653/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD EX PENSES WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE A CT. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED: (A) TO ALLOW SET-OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,28, 559/-; (B) TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.64,18,653 /- (RS.37,00,000 BEING FRINGE BENEFIT TAX, RS.4,50,000 BEING WEALTH TAX AND 3 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT RS.22,68,656/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES)WHILE CO MPUTING BOOK PROFIT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. AND TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO TO GIVE ALL CONSEQUENT. IAL RELIEF. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST T HE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT U/S 148. THE BRIEF FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11/2006 D ECLARING ITS INCOME AT RS. NIL WHILE THERE WAS BOOK PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT A ND INCOME TAX WAS PAID ACCORDINGLY ON THE SAME WHICH WAS REVISED LATER ON. THEREAFTER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 AT RS. NIL UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AT RS.31,25,75,720/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT BY MAKING VA RIOUS DISALLOWANCES INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE U/S14A HOWEVER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION FOR AY 20001-02 OF RS. 4,23,73 ,057/- WAS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS APPEALED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL AND ULTIMATELY TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF THE AO TO MAKE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AFTER RELYING ON THE CASE PASS ED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 4 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 R .W.S. 148 OF THE ACT AND NOTICES U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER R ECORDING THE REASONS U/S 148(2) WHICH WERE INCORPORATED BY THE AO IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED E XCESS CLAIM OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,68,28,559/- AS AGAINST THE ACTUALLY ALLOWABLE OF RS. 2,55,44,498/-. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 2 5.11.11 REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S 148 AND ALSO REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS OF REOPENING WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE AS SESSEE. 4. THE LD. AO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) DA TED 07.11.2012 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AT NIL AND AT RS.31,89,94,374/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS D ISALLOWANCE INTER ALIA INCLUDING DEPRECIATION OF A.Y. 2001-2002 OF RS.1,68 ,28,559/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND UPHOLDING VARIOU S ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL MR. HITESH JOSHI VEHE MENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY RE-OPENED UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF 5 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT THE ACT FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF A.Y.2001-02 AT RS.4,23,73,057/- WHICH WAS ALSO ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AS AGAINST THE CORRECT ALLOWABLE CLAIM OF RS. 2,55,44,498/- THEREBY RESULTING INTO EXCESS CL AIM OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,828,559/-. THE LD. COUNSEL SUB MITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AO HAD WRONGLY RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT WHEN AN ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO TO REC TIFY THE ASSESSEES EXCESS CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 147 OF THE ACT TO RE-OPEN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WHI CH WAS ALREADY CONCLUDED WAS TOTALLY ILLOGICAL, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIO N OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THAT IN ORDER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO THERE WERE THREE POSSIBLE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT NAM ELY (I) A RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT ; (II) A REVISION UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT ; AND (III) A REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147. ALL THESE REMEDIES WERE EXERCISABLE BY DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES WITHIN DIFFERENT PERIODS OF LIMITATION. THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY URGED BEFORE US THAT THE REVENUE MUST CHOOSE THE MO ST APPROPRIATE REMEDY THAT LEFT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LEAST DETRIMENT. HOWEVER THE AO COULD HAVE EXERCISED THE RECTIFICATION POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 154 TO RECTIFY THE EXCESS CLAIM ON BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECI ATION. THE AO INSTEAD CHOSE THE COURSE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN ORDER TO R ECTIFY THE SIMPLE COMPUTATIONAL 6 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT ERROR WAS A MATTER OF SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE ASSE SSEE AS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMIT TED BEFORE US THE LD. AO THUS CAUSED GRAVE INJUSTICE AND PREJUDICE BY RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH COULD HAVE DONE BY HAVING RECOURSE TO ALTERNATIVE EFFICAC IOUS REMEDY OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THUS AO JURISDICTION U/S 147 O F THE ACT WAS WRONG , ILLEGAL AND THE AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THEY COULD N OT BE PERMITTED TO DISTURB THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IN ORDER TO RECTIFY A APPARENT MI STAKE FOR WHICH THE LAW HAD PROVIDED BUILD IN REMEDY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERED THE AO THE RECTIFY THE MISTAKE WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORDS WITHOUT DISTURBING THE ENTIRE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AO ALSO MADE VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS WHICH COULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE MADE AT THE AO NOT REOPENING THE CASE U/S 147. ULTIMATELY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUT HORITIES BE QUASHED AS MORE EFFICACIES ALTERNATIVE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT BE QUASHED AS BEING ARBITRARY, PREJUDICIAL AND AGAI NST THE SPIRIT OF THE ACT BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010] 325 ITR 102 (BOM) 7 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT IN DEFENCE OF HIS ARGUMENT. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RECORDS BEFORE US THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 R.W. S.148 OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEP RECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,28,559/- AS IS CLEAR FROM THE REASONS RECOR DED U/S 148 (2) OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF POLYSTERENE FOR VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD AND C ONSUMER DURABLES. THE RETURN FOR A.Y.2006-07 WAS FILED ON 2 9/11/2006 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. NIL AND TAX WAS PAID ON BOO K PROFIT AS PER S. 115JB. THE RETURN WAS REVISED DECLARING THE INCOME AT RS. NIL WHILE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB WAS REVISED ON ACCOUNT OF ADD ING BACK THE DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D U/S.143(3) ON 24/12/2008 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB AT RS.31,25,75,720/-. ADDITION U/S 14A AMOUNT ING TO RS.6,77,706/- WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDE R BOTH NORMAL AND PROVISIONS OF S. 115JB. FROM THE PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF AY 2005-06, THE UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AY 2001-02 THAT IS CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET-OFF WITH CURRENT YEARS INCOME REMAINS AT RS.2,55,44,498/-, WHILE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AT RS.4,23,73 ,057/- IN ITS 8 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 AND THE SAME HAS BE EN ALLOWED IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3). THUS, AN EXCESS CLAIM OF UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION OF AY 2001-02 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,28, 559/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEARS TAXABLE INCOME. THIS EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIA TION OF RS.1,68,28,559/- AMOUNTS TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WI THIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 2 TO PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: EXPLANATION 2.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT , NAMELY:- (A) WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN Y OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX; (B) WHERE A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE LOSS, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF IN T HE RETURN; (C) WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BUT- (I) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED; O R (II) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW A RATE; OR (III) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECT OF EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR (IV) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTH ER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT MADE CORRECT CLA IM REGARDING ITS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE CURRE NT FINANCIAL YEAR 9 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO B ELIEVE THAT DUE TO OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H REGARD TO INCORRECT CLAIM, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.1,6 8,28,559/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF SECTION 147. THUS THE AO RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF TH E ACT ALREADY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) IN ORDER TO RECTIFY THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,68,28,559 WHICH HAD RESULTED FROM THE WRONG CLAIM OF THE BROU GHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,23,73,057/- AS AGAINST THE CORRECT CLAIM OF R S.2,55,44,498/- WHICH IS AN APPARENT ARITHMETIC ERROR OR COMPUTATIONAL ERROR. NOW IN ORDER TO RECTIFY SUCH AN ERROR, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RE-OPENED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO GO IN EACH AND EVERY ISSUE WHICH STOOD EXAMINED AND CONCL UDED ALREADY BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OTHERWISE IT WILL RESULT INTO UNEN DING LITIGATION AND UNFETTERED POWERS IN THE HANDS OF TAX AUTHORITIES PUTTING THE ASSESSEE TO HUGE DETRIMENT AND INCONVENIENCE. THE ACT HAS PROVIDED FOR VARIOUS PRO VISIONS REMEDYING THE VARIOUS TYPES ERRORS FOR APPARENT COMPUTATION ERROR AND ALS O FOR THOSE INVOLVING COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED ISSUE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE THAN APPA RENT ERROR. THE VARIOUS POSSIBLE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT ARE NAMEL Y (I) A RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT; (II) A REVISION UNDER SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT; AND (III) A REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THUS THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO TAKE RECOURSE TO SUCH REMEDY WHICH IS MOST SUITABLE TO T HE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE 10 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT AND CAUSES LEAST PREJUDICE, DETRIMENT AND DISTURBAN CE TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN AN ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL MANNER OTHERWISE THE SPIRIT OF LAW WOULD BE DEFEATED. IN THE PRESENT CASE TO CORRECT A SIMPLE APPARENT MISTA KE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE AO BY EXERCISING HIS POWER U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE AO CHOOSE TO RE-OPEN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT AND THUS ASSUMED THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE APART FROM THE EXCESS C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS RECORDED IN THE REASONS U/S 148(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS AGAINST THE SCHEME PROVIDED IN THE ACT. WE FIND MERITS IN THE A RGUMENT OF THE LD. AR MR. JOSHI THAT AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICACIOUS REMEDY AVAI LABLE WITH THE AO WAS U/S 154 OF THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE WRONG CLAIM BY THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CLAIM WHICH EMPOWERS THE TA X AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE AO TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY THEM WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE REVENUE HAD AN EFFICACIOUS REMEDY OPEN TO IT IN THE FORM OF A RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 FOR CORRECTING A COMPUTATIONAL ERROR AN D CONSEQUENTLY RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 WAS NOT WARRANTED. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, EXCESSIVE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION WA S SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE RE-OPENING OF THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS ALSO AGAINST THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE DECI SION. IN THE CASE OF J.C. 11 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT THAKKAR VS. CIT [1955] 27 ITR658 (BOM) THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT LAID DOWN THE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN ONE OR MORE MODES OF ASSESSMENT OR REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY MUST ADOPT THAT REMEDY WHICH IS A MATTER OF THE LEAST PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE A BOVE SAID DECISIONS ANNUL AND QUASH THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF T HE ACT AND CONSEQUENT RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF T HE CASE AND . AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :26.02.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE 12 ITA NO. 3627/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006-07) SUPREME PETROCHEM LIMITED VS ACIT / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI.