Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1683 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-08-2017
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
27-06-2017
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
15-01-2015
Judgement Text
ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-5(2) -VERSUS- M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD. KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AABCB 0984 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI ANAND R.BAIWAR, CIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI N.K.PODDAR, SR. ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2014 OF CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2002-03. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ A S FOLLOWS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE C.I.T (A) ERRED AS ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE CASE WAS REOPENED WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT, AND AS SUCH, REOPENING OF THE CASES WAS VALID AS DECIDED BY THE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF YUVRAJ VS UNION OF INDIA (315 ITR 84). 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, O R WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRIS E UNDER THE CONTROL OF MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS. FOR A.Y.2002-03 THE ASSE SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2002 AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.0 2.2003. THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS A LOSS OF RS.11,41,09,915/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) OF RS.8 ,08,18,867/-. AN ORDER OF ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 2 ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( ACT) WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON 28.03.2005. 4. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND IN ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIME D DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS.6,50,01,073/- UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENTS WRITTE N OFF. IN A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142 OF THE ACT DATED 23.11.2004, THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE ACT PROVISION FOR DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.6.5 CRORES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDIT URE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID QUERY OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED NOTE EXPLAI NING THE TRANSACTIONS BY WHICH THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INV ESTMENT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTIN G THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE SAID NOTE WHICH CONTAINS ALL DETAILS AND EXPLAINS A S TO HOW A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY WAS PROMOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COCHIN REFINERIES LTD AND THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY ULTIMATELY MERGED WITH COCHIN REFINERIES LT D AND HOW THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GOT SHARES IN THE MERGED COMPANY IN EXCHANG E FOR THE SHARES IT HELD IN THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY AND AS TO HOW CONSEQUENT TO T HE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN THE MERGED COMPANY THERE WAS A DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.03.2005, HE DID NOT DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT AM OUNTING TO RS.6.5 CRORES. 5. THERE WAS A COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL ( CAG) REPORT IN WHICH IT WAS OPINED THAT DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT OF R S.6.5 CRORES WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE BUT WAS NOT DISALLOWED WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2002- 03. THIS REPORT IS STATED TO BE FOR THE YEAR 2008. THERE APPEARS TO BE A REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 33 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THERE WAS A DOUBT RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE DIMINISH ING VALUE OF INVESTMENT WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS A R EVENUE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION DOES NOT BEAR ANY REFERENCE AS HAVING BEEN RAISED CONSEQUENT TO THE CAG REPORT. ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 3 6. WHILE THE MATTER STOOD THUS, THE AO ISSUED NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 09.09.2008. THE SAID NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED O N 11.09.2008. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT MAKING AN ASSESSMENT U/S 148 ARE AS FOLLOWS :- REASONS TO BELIEVE: ON PERUSAL OFF RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS DEBITED ITS P/L ACCOUNT BY RS.65001073/- UNDER THE HEAD OF ' INVESTMENT WRI TTEN OFF' - WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADD BACK IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHILE SUBMITTING HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DISALLOWED 'INVESTMENT WRITTEN -OFF' AND ADDED BACK IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF IS CAPITAL -IN-NATURE AN D HENCE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE .THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDED IT BACK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; AS IT HAS DONE FOR NEXT ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME OF RS.6,50,01,073/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2002-03. 7. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE ACT NAMELY 09.09.2008 THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REO PENED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2002-03 AND SUCH REOPENING IS BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE HAVE ALREADY S EEN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y.2002-03 H AS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED BY ORDER DATED 28.03.2005. PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT READS THUS :- PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF S ECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT A SSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF TH E FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN R ESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FO R THAT ASSESSMENT. YEAR 8. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROVISO TO SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 4 ACTION CAN BE TAKEN U/S 147 OF THE ACT AFTER THE EX PIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE EXCEPTION PROVIDE D IN SECTION IS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX SHOULD HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS IS THE RE LEVANT CLAUSE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 19.01.2009 WHEREIN THE AO HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND WRITTEN OFF IN SUCH INVESTMENT WAS A LSO CAPITAL IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE AO THEREFORE CO NCLUDED THAT THE SUM OF RS.6.50 LAKHS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). 11. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VA LIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT WHILE CONCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE NATURE OF DI MINUTION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS, WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL T HE DETAILS AND THE AO DID NOT THINK IT FIT TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID SUM AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR WAS NOT VALID IN VIEW OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE AO PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD . 320 ITR 561 (SC). 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO, W HO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT P OWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ACIT 350 ITR 266 (GUJ) AND CIT VS SUN ENGINEERING W ORKS PVT. LTD. 198 ITR 297 ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 5 (SC) THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ANNULLED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT . ACCORDING TO CIT(A) THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS APPLICABLE AN D SINCE THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE AL L THE FACTS INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS IS NOT V ALID. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) :- AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I FIND MORE FORCE IN THOSE MADE BY THE APP ELLANT. WHILE THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE REASON TO B ELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS ALSO NO MENTION OF THE ESCAPEMENT BEING ON ACCOUNT OF ANY FAILURE OF THE A PPELLANT IN MAKING FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS. RATHER, THE REAS ON IS BASED DIRECTLY ON ENTRY IN THE P&L A/C WHICH WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. MOREOVER, IN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SPECIFIC QUERY HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THIS POINT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, ESCAPEMENT, IF ANY, CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY LACK OF DISCLOSURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. RATHER, IT AMOUNTS TO CH ANGE OF OPINION. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS, INCLUDING THAT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561 (SC), THAT ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON MERE CHANGE IN OPINION. THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD. 350 ITR 266 (GUJ.) DOES NOT ASSIST THE CASE OF HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANY WAY. FIRSTLY, I T RELATES TO REOPENING WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR, W HEN THE FIRST PROVISO DID NOT COME INTO PICTURE. TRUE, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN TH E CITED DECISION THAT IF IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT E XAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT RAISED QUERY OR ELICIT ANSWERS, I T CANNOT BE STATED THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT SUCH A CLAIM IN THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, HE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO H AVE EXPRESSED AN OPINION WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH CLAIM. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME DECISION (WHICH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WAS AGAINST REVENUE), IT HAS ALSO BEEN HEL D, THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MAKES A QUERY ON CERTAIN CLAIM AND THEREAFTER DOES NOT MAKE ADDITION, HE CAN BE STATED TO HAVE FO RMED OPINION. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, REOPENING IS A FTER LAPSE OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE UNDER SEC TION 143(3). MOREOVER, A SPECIFIC QUERY HAD BEEN RAISED ON THE ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE RATIO GIVEN BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) IN F ACT GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEER ING WORKS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY CLARIFIED THE S COPE OF REASSESSMENT ONCE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN VALIDLY REOPENED. HOWEVER, THIS DECISION DOES NOT DISCUSS ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 6 THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND HENCE IS NOT GERMANE IN THE ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION. 12. TO SUMMARISE, IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DURING WHICH SP ECIFIC QUERY HAD BEEN RAISED ON THE ISSUE OF 'INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF AND AFTER C ONSIDERING THE REPLY NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT, IF ANY, WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF DISCLOSURE OF MATERIA L FACTS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, IN VIEW OF RESTRICTION PLACED BY FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED FOR T HE REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THIS LEGAL POSITION, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO QUASH THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 13. THE CIT(A) DID NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFE RRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR W AS THAT ON ALMOST IDENTICAL FACTS THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YUVRAJ VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 315 ITR 84 (BOM) HAD UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF INITIAT ION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YUVRAJ VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (SUPRA). IN TH E AFORESAID CASE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 12 LAKHS ON SALE OF RIGHT TO PURCHASE OPEN PLOT OF LAND IN PUNE AND DISCLOSED IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y.1996-97. THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LATER ON REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON TH E GROUND THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION WAS OF CASUAL IN NATURE AND HAD TO BE BROU GHT TO TAX AT A HIGHER RATE. THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CHALLEN GED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A WRIT PETITION. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INCOME IN QUESTION WAS CAPITAL GAIN OR CASUAL INCOME WAS A DDRESSED BY THE AO WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. WE D O NOT SEE ANY SIMILARITY OF ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 7 FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WITH THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. AS WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE HELD THAT INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID IN VIEW O F THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSE WAS SOU GHT TO BE REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 1543(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED BY THE AO. THE CIT(A) ALSO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL THE MA TERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VI EW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WAS ALSO THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. ANOTHER ASPECT SUBMI TTED BY THE LD. DR WAS THAT WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, TH E AO HAD NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT O F DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY MERIT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT. LTD VS DCIT 377 ITR 354 (GUJ) DEALT WITH A SITUATIO N OF CHALLENGE OF INITIATION OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. WHILE CO NCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO RAISED QUERIES ON ISSUES WHICH W ERE RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT MAKE ANY RE FERENCE OR GIVE ANY REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE ANSWER OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ISSUE B UT DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER THE RE-ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VALIDLY INITIATED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO MAY BE HELD TO HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREAFTER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID IN THE PR ESENT CASE THAT THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT DID NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINISHING IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR IN THIS REGARD IS THEREFORE NOT ACCEPTED. 15. ARGUMENTS WERE ALSO ADVANCED BEFORE US ON TH E VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTION ON A POINT OF LAW AND THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF ITA NO.81/KOL/2015 M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD A.Y. 2002-03 8 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINIO N. SEVERAL DECISIONS WERE ALSO FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE US. WE DO NO T DEEM IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ALL THOSE ARGUMENTS AND DECISIONS IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLU SION THAT THE CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN C ONCLUSION WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE ORDER O F CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM INFIRMITY. ORDER OF CIT(A) IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED A ND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18.08.2017. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18.08.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., 21, N.S.ROAD, KOLK ATA-700001. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-5 (2), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- VI, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-II, KOLKAT A 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
No Objection Letter for Use of Property – Partnership Firm
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026