CIT vs. INDIAN VACCINE CORPORATION LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 520/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel. . versus . . . INDIAN VACCINE CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent . Through: None. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 25.09.2012 . . . The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) dated 27.02.2012 in ITA No.5751/Del/2011. The question of law is whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the reopening of assessment in the facts of this case was not warranted. . The assessment year in this case is 2003-04; the assessee filed its return declaring a loss of `2,22,790/- in assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) which were completed on 05.09.2005. The re-assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 by a notice dated 15.02.2010 and orders were made on 29.10.2010 determining the total income of `31,69,000/-. The assessee?s appeal against the reassessment in view of the judgment of this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 was allowed. The Revenue?s appeal was rejected by the Tribunal which form the opinion that no question of law arose. The Tribunal followed the view of this Court and the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (331 ITR 236) that the expression ?and also? occurring in Section 147 imply that the ?income? which was the subject matter of the notice under Section 147 had to necessarily form part of the addition made in the reassessment proceedings and in its absence, the primary jurisdiction would cease. This Court has noted the grounds of appeal and considered the submissions. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) is clear in that matters which are the subject matter of the notice under Section 147 have to necessarily form part of the reassessment made. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . . . . . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 . hs . . . . . $ 3 .