The ACIT, Cir. 8, Ahmedabad V. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 91/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7327 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.91/AHD/2010 IN I.T.A. NO.3145 / AHD/2003 & C.O. NO.174/AHD/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) ACIT, CIRCLE 8, AHMEDBAAD VS. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., TORRENT HOUSE, NR. DINESH HALL, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : 31069CY4175 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B L YADAV, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR & SHRI P M MEHTA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 25.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.12.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REV ENUE AND IT WAS CONTENDED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 148 BY STATING THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE REA SONS RECODED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT AS PER EXPLANATION (3) TO SECTION 147, THE A.O. CAN MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND SUCH ISSUE COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURS E OF PROCEEDINGS U/S M.A.NO. 91/AHD/2010 2 147 EVEN IF THE REASON FOR SUCH ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 1 48. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF B T PATIL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1408, 14 09/PUNE/2003, IT WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LAW GOVERNING THE ISSUE AS STANDING ON THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER HAS TO BE APPLIED. 2. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE REITERATED THE SAME CONT ENTION, WHICH IS RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE A.O. CAN ASSESS OTHER INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS NOTED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF REA SSESSMENT ALONG WITH INCOME, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE R EASON TO BELIEVE TO BE RECORDED U/S 148(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DE CISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI RAM SINGH AS REPORTED IN 306 ITR 343 AND ON THIS BASIS, THE TRIB UNAL HAD QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE REVENUE THAT HOW, THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 3. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JET AIRWAYS AS REPORTED IN 331 ITR 236, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE A.O. CAN ALSO ASS ESS OTHER INCOME NOT REFERRED TO NOR IN REASSESSMENT BUT ONLY IF INCOME REFERRED IN NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. HE ALSO PLACED REL IANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 336 ITR 136 (DEL .) WHEREIN ALSO M.A.NO. 91/AHD/2010 3 SIMILAR VIEWS ARE TAKEN THAT ITEMS OF INCOME SAID T O HAVE BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON WHICH REASSESSMENT ARE PROPOSED NOT A DDED BUT OTHER DEDUCTION REDUCED, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS IS NOT PER MISSIBLE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM SINGH (SUPRA) AND NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCE D BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE AND HOW IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL O RDER ON FOLLOWING THIS DECISION AND DECIDED THE MATTER AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. OTHER TWO JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ARE ALSO ON SIMI LAR LINES. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE HAS CITED TH E DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF B T P ATEL & SONS AND BELGAUM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS ACIT BUT SINCE TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF VARIOUS HIGH CO URTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAK E IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL KUAMR SHRAWAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP M.A.NO. 91/AHD/2010 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19/12. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21/12.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 21/12 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 21/12 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.21/12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21/12/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..