MERCK LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6190/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 619019914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SANTOSH MANKUSKAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI B BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEM BER & SAKTIJIT DEY ,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6190 /MUM/201 1 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 1998 - 99 MERCK LIMITED SHIV SAGAR ESTATE A ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI , MUMBAI - 400 0 18 . PAN: AAACE 2616 F VS THE ASSTT. CIT - 6(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K . ROAD MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MS. AARTI VISSANJI / REVENUE BY : SHRI DR. SANTOSH MANKUSKAR - D R / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 09 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 0 9 - 2015 , 1961 254 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 1/7/2011 OF CIT(A) - 12 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : I. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN - (A) HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S.220(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS CHARGEABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND UPHOLDING THE CHARGE THEREOF OF RS.52,12,243/ - (B) ALTERNATIVELY NOT DIRECTING FOR VERIFICATION OF THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST AS ASKED FOR BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE - (A) NOT HELD THAT INTEREST U / S.220(2) OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE AND NOT UPHELD CHARGE OF RS.52, 12,243/ - THEREFOR. (B) ALTERNATIVELY OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED FOR VERIFICATION AS REGARDS THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST AS ASKED FOR BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL. BRIEF FACTS: IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLAT AUTHORITY (FAA) , DATED 16.2.2010, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, ( AO ) PASSED AN ORDER ON 21.08.2008. W HILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FAA, HE CHARGED INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.52.12 LACS AND INTEREST OF RS.1.27 CRORES U/S. 234D OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA , WHO DELETED THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234D OF THE ACT .HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.220 OF THE ACT.DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING BEFORE US, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ( AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE STATED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER, DT.20.3.2015 (ITA/7459 - 60/MUM/2004 - A.Y. 98 - 99 AND 99 - 2000)HAD HELD THAT THE I TA/ 6190/M/11MERCK LTD ,AY. 98 - 99 2 REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT WAS INVALID.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( DR ) L EFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE FIND THAT VIDE NOTICE, DT.13.3.2003 , THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND HAD RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 0 8. 0 2. 2001, THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COM PLETED ON 26.2.2004, THAT THE FAA UPHELD THE REOPENING, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE REOPENING. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE PARA GRAPH NO.7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.3.2015 AND SAME READS AS UNDER : 7.WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER WHICH IS PLACED AT PG - 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK.WE FIND THAT THIS LETTER IS NOTHING BUT A QUESTIONNAIRE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, A QUESTIONNAIRE CANNOT REPLACE OR SUPPLEMENT THE SUPPLY OF RE A SONS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS DIS CUSSED HEREIN ABOVE IS SINE - QUA - NON FOR REASSESSMENT. F URTHER, THE LD.DR COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT THE REASONS WERE ACTUALLY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE.CONSIDE R ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFER RED TO HEREIN ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUO US. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND , SEPTEMBER ,2015. 22 , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( / SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE: .22 . 09. 2015 . . . JV . SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.