Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘J‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in for A.Y.2011-12 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30/06/2021 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 22/03/2021 for the A.Y.2011-12.
We find that assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings vide ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 before us.
M/s. Strides Pharma Science Ltd.,
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged into the business of manufacturing, marketing and supply of pharmaceutical products. It exports pharmaceutical products through its export oriented unit. We find that assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 30/11/2011 declaring total income of Rs.’Nil’. and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) on 30/01/2016 determining total income at Rs.58,99,67,000/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was sought to be reopened u/s.147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 was issued and served on the assessee on 31/03/2018. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are as under:-
M/s. Strides Pharma Science Ltd., 3.1. From the aforesaid reasons, it could be seen that the issue for which assessment was reopened is for imputing interest on share application money for the first six months. For the last six months, the same interest imputation was made. Now, the short point that arises for our consideration is, is there any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose primary and material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment in the original proceedings. The entire facts relevant to the issue in dispute was already placed on record by the assessee. This fact is even more evident from the reasons recorded by the ld. AO as reproduced supra, which starts with the expression “on going through the case records it is found……..”. Hence, this conclusively goes to prove the following:- a. There is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld. AO which would enable him to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening. b. There is no failure on the part of the assessee in the original assessment proceedings to disclose primary and material facts that are relevant for the purpose of assessment. c. The ld. AO is only trying to change his opinion on the very same set of facts which are already available before him.
3.2. In fact, in the reasons recorded, nowhere the ld. AO had brought on record or even whispered as to how there was a failure on the part of the assessee in not furnishing the relevant details in the original assessment proceedings. Moreover, from the perusal of the order of the ld. TPO in the first round of proceedings u/s.92CA(3) of the Act dated 16/01/2015 enclosed in page 435 of the paper book, we find that assessee had made detailed submission vide letter dated 13/01/2015 regarding the issue in dispute before us on the aspect of imputation of interest on share
M/s. Strides Pharma Science Ltd., application money. This fact is also recorded in page 437 of the paper book, being the old TPO’s order. Hence, the ld. TPO after considering the submissions of the assessee had taken a reasoned and considered view by concluding that interest is to be imputed for last six months alone. Hence, when a possible view had been taken by the ld. TPO, the same cannot be disturbed by way of reopening of the assessment proceedings. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Western Outdoor Interactive P Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 286 ITR 620.
3.3. The law is also very well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held that reassessment cannot be made on mere change of opinion and the ld. AO cannot be given a second innings to review the same set of facts in the guise of reopening. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in quashing the re-assessment proceedings as void ab initio. Since the reassessment is quashed, the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits need not be gone into and they are left open.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 29/04/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.