Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश / O R D E R
महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
These appeal of Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-14, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-14/ITO-6(1)(3)/IT-21/2013-14 vide dated 13.03.2014. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2005-06 vide order dated
2 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 22.03.2013 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment framed by the AO concluding that the assessee’s case falls under the proviso to section 147 of the Act and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material particulars necessary for framing assessment. For this Revenue has raised the following three grounds: -
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material particulars necessary for framing the assessment, which led to setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer"
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that amount of Rs. Fifty Five crores was "income" as per the "Frame-work for the preparation and presentation of Financial Statement issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee ought to have offered the amount of loan Rs. 55 crores waived as "income" in the profit and loss account instead of transferring it to the "General Reserve' and resultantly failed to disclose truly and fully all the material particulars necessary for framing the assessment",
3 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate the ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd vs DClT 308 ITR 417 while setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the plea taken by the assessee that A.O had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and thereby giving the relief to the assessee in respect of waiver of the principle amount which was taken for 'business purposes' (being 'revenue in nature')".
Brief facts are that the assessee filed original return of income for the AY 2005-06 on 29.10.2005 declaring Nil income along with computation of income including computation of income of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Original assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 27.03.2012, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The AO framed re-assessment, even though the assessee was supplied reasons recorded vide letter dated 02.05.2012 and objections were raised against the reasons vide letter dated 26.11.2012 by the assessee. The objection were rejected by the AO vide letter dated 31.12.2012. The AO thereafter, framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2013. The AO in his re-assessment order made addition of 137,21,71,464/- while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act by observing in Para 12 as under: -
“12. It is noticed from the above facts that the assessee has credited this amount of ₹ 1,37,21,71,464/- to the capital reserve account
4 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 instead of rouging through P&L A/c. The said treatment is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 145(1) of the act. As per the provisions of section 115JB any amount transferred to reserves is required to be included in the Book Profit. The assessee failed to do so hence an amount of ₹ 1,37,21,71,464/- (1894599746-522428281) is adjusted to the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act. Therefore, the total income shown by the assessee at ₹ NIL remains unchanged.”
In view of the above, the AO added the amount directly taken in the balance sheet under the head of General reserve a/c (remission of liability) on account of interest amounting to ₹ 82,21,71,464/- and principal amount of loan of ₹ 55 crores.. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A).
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings on the very issue of reopening by observing as under: -
“…5.7 On perusal of the rejection letter it is noticed that the AO rejected the objection relying on the reasons without adducing further arguments to controvert the objection raised by the assessee. The admitted fact is that the assessment is reopened after 4 years. There is no averment in the reason recorded by the AO that assessee has failed to make full and true disclosure at the time of original assessment proceedings. Thus for the reassessment to be valid as per the provisions of the act the issue to
5 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 be decided is whether there was full and true disclosure on the part of the appellant or not. In this regard the entire submission filed by the appellant is examined and also the submission filed with the assessing officer during original assessment proceedings.
(A) Observation on Reason No. 1:-
On perusal of letter dated 20/10.2007 it noticed that assessee has filed complete details about the interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii). The details filed by assessee is reproduced as under:-
Regarding the note on interest under section 36(i)(iii), we are following project completion method and in AY 2005-06 we have offered the income in respect of the project situated at Sion as the said project is completed in AY 2005-06. In earlier assessment years the total cost of the project is treated as work in progress. I earlier assessment years the interest cost was debited to Work in progress account of respective projects and the total interest was prorate allocated to different projects. In respect of the Sion project the allocation of interest was ₹ 38,52,89,686/- . As the project is completed in AY 2005- 06 the total WIP of the project is debited to profit & Loss account under the head
6 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 Land, Construction, Development and Finance cost which amounts to ₹ 73,9,05,445/-. As the deduction is already claimed in earlier years and the same is now debited to profit and loss account the said amount of ₹ 38,52,89,686/- is disallowed in computing the total income.
Thus there was no failure on part of assessee to make full disclosure in respect to reason No. 1, as from above it is apparent that assessee has disclosed complete facts in respect to interest under section 36(1)(iii). At the time of re- assessment proceedings neither any new material nor any new fact came to light/ knowledge of the Assessing Officer. The AO is his reassessment order has not made any mention regarding the same.
(B). Observation on Reason No.2-
On perusal of letter dated December 11, 2007 it is noticed that complete details of loan and remission of liability is submitted by the assessee to the AO which is reproduced as under: -
With reference to above assessment proceedings and in continuation of the details submitted to you we give further details/ clarification as under
7 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 1) We state & confirm that as on 31.03.2005 no secured loan is outstanding. As regards the loans appearing as on 31.03.2005 amounting to ₹ 11,74,17,994/- the breakup is as under
a) unsecured loans 94,54,17,994/-
b) Deposit 27,20,00,000/-
Total 11,74,17,994/-
2) We have submitted to you the breakup of the unsecured loans giving the name, address and amount vide our letter dated 1.12.2007. As regards the deposit, we submit that the same is received from M/s Elkay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the same is reflected in the books of accounts since last many years. No new deposit is taken during the year.
3) As regards the reconciliation of secret loans between the outstanding balance as on 31.03.2004 and as on 31.03.2005 we have to state that the total loans outstanding as on 31.03.2004 was 160,60,88,464/- which comprises of the secured loans payable to banks ₹ 160,45,93,524/- and overdraft payable to Vysya Bank Ltd. amounting to ₹ 3,94,940/-. Both these amounts are
8 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 outstanding as on 31.03.2004. The sum of ₹ 160,60,88,464/- includes the amount payable to SBI Home Finance Ltd. amounting to ₹ 162,70,000/- against the O/o Debentures issued to them.
4) During the year 1/4/2004 no new secured loans are taken.
5) During the period 1/4/2004 to 31/3/2005 we have made the settlement with Punjab & Sind Bank, Vysya Bank Ltd. and SBI Finance Ltd. and have paid the total sum of ₹ 22,01,97,000/-. The breakup of the said payment is enclosed. The copies of the correspondence and settlement made with Punjab & Sind Bank as well as Vysya Bank Ltd are enclosed. Both the banks have certified that no dues are outstanding & payable to them. After settling the account the total outstanding amount remained was ₹ 138,58,91,464/-. Out of the this ₹ 1,37,20,000/- has been transferred to the head ‘Other Income’ and ₹ 137,21,71,464/- is transferred to General Reserve. The General Reserve account also reflects the sum of ₹ 137,21,71,464/-. You are requested to kindly refer to Schedule B of the financial statement.
9 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 6) We submit that out of the total loans payable to banks we have made the settlement and the balance amount outstanding viz. ₹ 137,21,71,464/- is the remission of the liability. After making one time settlement with the banks we do not have any further liability for making payment to the Punjab & Sind Bank and Vysya Bank Ltd.
7) We further submit that out of ₹ 137,21,71,464/- being the remission of liability the principal amount of the loan payable to both the bank is ₹ 55,00,00,000/- and the remission towards the interest is ₹ 82,21,71,464/-. The total of the principal and the interest for which the remission has bene made amount to ₹ 137,21,71,464/-.
8) We submit that the remission of the principal amount of ₹ 55,00,00,000/- is towards the loans which were received from both these banks in earlier assessment years. The loan received by the company as a capital receipt in the nature of loan and the remission of such loan i.e. remission of capital received is not the income and the same has not been offered for tax.
10 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 9) As regards the remission of interest of ₹ 82,21,71,464/- we submit that in earlier assessment years we were having financial difficulties and we were not in a position to make the payment of interest as well as the principal amount. The said interest has been disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The yearwise breakup of disallowance of interest is enclosed.
From the submission of the assessee and details filed it is noticed that all details pertaining to the loan and interest is filed. Thus there was no failure on part of the assessee to make full disclosure in respect to reason No.2
(c) Observation on Reason No.3:-
The assessee has dilled the computation under section 115JB along with the return of income. All relevant details were also filed at the time of original assessment proceedings. The AO accepted the computation and did not make any adjustment at the time of original assessment proceedings. The financial statements are prepared as per Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956/ The Auditors of the company have also not made any adverse remark in this regard in their audit report. Once the accounts are prepared as per Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956,
11 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 there is no provision for making adjustment for the purpose of computation of book profit under section 115JB in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. wherein it has been clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the accounts are prepared as per part II and III of Schedule VI of the companies Act only permitted adjustment can be made. Moreover, all the material was present with the AO at the time of original assessment proceedings. In reassessment order the AO has neither made any finding in the order that the adjustment to book profit computed by the assessee is made on any new material that has come to light after the original assessment was completed. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Titanor Components Limited writ petition No. 71 of 2005 243 CTR (Bom.) 520 has held that “Nowhere has the AO stated that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Having regard to the purpose of the section, we are of the view that the power conferred by section 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so mad eint he result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment,
12 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the AO to open the assessment on the ground that here is a mistake in assessment.
Thus there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make full disclosure at the time of original proceedings in respect to reason No. 3.”
The CIT(A) noted that the assessment reopened beyond 4 years from the end of the assessment year and he has gone through the reasons recorded and noted that the AO while issuing notice for reassessment was having no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment, when the original assessment proceedings took place. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal.
Before us, the learned CIT DR, Shri Anadi Verma, heavily relied on the reassessment order and the order of the AO rejecting the objections of reopening as submitted vide letter dated 31.12.2012. He also relied on the reasons recorded. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, we have gone through the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment, which were placed before us by the learned CIT DR and the relevant reasons read as under: -
“Reasons for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961
13 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 1. It is observed from records that the assessee has undertaken various projects, following projects completion method. It is understood as to how the company is showing huge business losses of ₹ 125.68 crore including depreciation of ₹ 3.84 crore (for the year 1996-97 to 2003-04). Due to incorrect allocation of expenses there were huge losses shown by the assessee which seems to be not genuine. During the relevant year the assessee has completed Sion Project however actual/ net amount of expenditure was not debited to profit and loss. The interest of ₹ 2852.90 lakh relating to the said project was already debited and adjusted against the profit of other projects in earlier years. The assessee has debited cost of Sion project of ₹ 7399/05 lakh including interest of ₹ 3852.90 lacs but at the same time the said interest was not reversed by crediting similar amount in the profit and loss. By doing so, the profit as per book arrived less by ₹ 3852.9 lacs for avoiding payment of tax under section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the said the normal computation of income & claimed for set off of brought forward losses under normal provision of Act.
It is further observed that the assessee company has made settlement with Punjab and Sind Bank, Vysya Bank and 561 Home Finance Ltd. The assessee had paid the total sum of
14 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 Rs.22,01,97,000/- out of Rs.160,60,88,464/- payable by the assessee. After settling the account the total outstanding amount remained was Rs 138,58,91,4647/-. Out of this a sum of Rs 137.20.00O/ has been credited to P&L A/c under the head other income and Rs 13721.71.464/ was directly transferred to General Reserve Account (being the remission of liability). The principal amount of loan payable to bank was Rs crores and remission of interest was Rs 8Z21,7L464/-. This interest was already debited to PSI A/c but not paid and disallowed under section 43B in the computation of income in earlier year. In the assessment proceedings it was confirmed that interest of Rs.75,4487,3441- was only disallowed therefore balance of Rs,676,84,120/-. (822171464-754487344) was added to normal income. The remission of liability of Rs,13721,71A84/-)(revenue or capital nature) should have been credited /routed through P&L A/c however this amount was taken directly in the balance sheet under the head General Reserve Account The General Reserve Account was further reduced by similar amount and transferred to P&L A/c shown in the balance sheet. The loss shown in the balance sheet under the head P&L A/c was reduced from Rs 189,45,99,746/- to Rs.52,2428.281/- however this amount was not credited to P&L A/c and no tax under MAT was offered. In the
15 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 scrutiny assessment book profit under MAT has not been computed {115JB(2) Explanation(b)}
Omission to credit the above amounts in the P&L A/c for arriving true and correct book profit chargeable under the special provision of section 115JB has resulted in short levy of tax of Rs.15,34,23,110/-.”
Admitted position is that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2005-06 on 29.10.2005, which was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issue don 27.03.2012. In the reasons recorded for issuance of notice, it is clear that according to AO the reasons are recorded from the information available on record and particularly the amount credited of ₹ 137,21,71,464 to the capital reserve account as per the balance sheet. In the reasons recorded the AO noted that as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act this amount transferred to reserve account is required to be included in the book profit while computing income under section 115JB of the Act. We noted that these facts in entirety were available before AO during the course of original assessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.007. Form the very reason; it is clear that the AO has made no allegation against assessee that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is evident from the reasons recorded. We noted that the CIT(A) has categorically recorded this finding and we have reproduced the observation of the CIT(A) as given in Para 5.6 and 5.7 of his order reproduced above. We noted that this sum of ₹ 137,21,71,464/- being directly transferred to general reeve. This consists of the principal amount of loan of ₹ 55 crores and remission of interest of ₹ 82,21,71,464/-. As
16 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 per the legal provisions other remission of liability of principal amount and interest which formed part of the loan amount being the unpaid interest was correctly credited to general reserve and was correctly not routed through profit & Loss account. The auditors of the company have also accepted this legal position and have certified that the financial statements are prepared as per part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. The Auditors of the company have also not made any of the Companies Act, 1956. The Auditors of the Company have also not made any adverse remark in this regard in their audit report. We submit that once the accounts are prepared as per part II and III of schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no provision for making adjustment for the purpose of computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. We noted that this information was available with the AO and he has applied his mind to these facts. According to us, the assessee had made full and true disclosure of material facts on which there is adjudication by the AO in the original assessment proceedings and there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment. Now, we will deal with the case laws.
We noted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee 8. and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), wherein the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the first proviso to section 147 of the Act lays down an exception whereby the AO is not permitted to exercise his jurisdiction in reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Once the exception carved out by proviso to s. 147 of the Act comes into play, the case would fall outside the ambit of s. 147 of the Act. As per proviso to s. 147 of the Act, no action under this section can be taken after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment
17 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 year, unless inter alia, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of failure of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. In case, there being no whisper in the reasons supplied to assessee that income escaped assessment by reason of assessee’s failure to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment, notice under section 148 of the Act issued beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under proviso to s. 147 of the Act, hence without jurisdiction. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled the notice is without jurisdiction. If the notice issued u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue authorities is strictly challenged by the taxpayers at large in the court of law and courts have quashed the notice issued by Revenue authorities or quashed the re-assessment orders. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Foramer vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All) wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High court has considered the issue as under: -
“Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed.
It may be mentioned that a new section substituted section 147 with effect from 1-4- 1989. The relevant part of the new section 147 is as follows :
18 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 "147. Income escaping assessment.—If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :
Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment 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 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response 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, for that assessment year."
19 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 This new section has made a radical departure from the original section 147 inasmuch as clauses (a) and (b) of the original section 147 have been deleted and a new proviso added to section 147.
In Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT[1997] 225 ITR 4961, the Delhi High Court held that in view of the proviso to section 147 notice for reassessment under section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under section 143(3), then in view of the proviso to section 147 the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in Shree Tharad Jain Yuvak Mandal v. ITO[2000] 242 ITR 612.
In our opinion, we have to see the law prevailing on the date of issue of the notice under section 148, i.e., 20-11-1998. Admittedly, by that date, the new section 147 has come into force and, hence, in our opinion, it is the new section 147 which will apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there was admittedly no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, the
20 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 proviso to the new section 147 squarely applies, and the impugned notices were barred by limitation mentioned in the proviso.
The learned departmental counsel relied on section 153(3)(ii) of the Act and submitted that there was no bar of limitation in view of the said provision. We do not agree. Section 153 relates to passing of an order of assessment and it does not relate to issuing of notice under section 147/148. Moreover, this is not a case where reassessment is sought to be made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in the order of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. As already stated above, Boudier Christian's case related to the employees of the company, whereas the impugned notice has been issued to the company. Hence, it cannot be said that the proposed reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case.
A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii ) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee and in relevance to a particular assessment year. To be a necessary finding it must be directly involved in the disposal of the case. To be a
21 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 direction as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) it must be an express direction necessary for the disposal of the case before the authority or court vide Rajinder Nath v. CIT[1979]120 ITR 141 (SC); Gupta Traders v. CIT[1982] 135 ITR 5042 (All.); CIT v. Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) 236 ITR 4773 (SC) and CIT v. Goel Ltd.[1999] Bros.[1982] 135 ITR 5114(All.), etc. The case of an expatriate employee was to be decided on the basis of the provisions of article XIV of the treaty, whereas corporate income was to be decided on the basis of either article III or article XVI of the treaty or section 44BB. Hence, the observation of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case was not a direction necessary for the disposal of the appeal relating to the petitioner. The eligibility of income of the petitioner from manning and management contracts was never an issue directly or indirectly involved in the case of Boudier Christian.
Moreover, the Tribunal in the appeal relating to the assessment of the petitioner's own case, vide Dy. CIT v. O.N.G.C. As agent of Foramer France[1999] 70 ITD 468 (Delhi), has considered the decision of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and, hence, when the Tribunal in
22 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 the appeal relating to the petitioner has considered the decision of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case, the impugned notice under section 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc.
In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services.
Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to be seen, yet even in the alternative even if we assume that the law prior to the insertion of the new section 147 will apply, even then it will make no difference since even under the original section 147 notice for reassessment could not be given on the mere change of opinion as held in numerous cases of the Supreme Court, some of which have been mentioned above. Since the Tribunal in the appeal relating to the assessee-company had
23 | P a g e ITA No.3638/Mum/2014 considered the Tribunal's earlier decision in Boudier Christian's case, it will obviously amount to mere change of opinion, and, hence, the notice under section 147/148 would be illegal.” In view of the above facts of the present case and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foramer France (supra), we confirm the order of CIT(A) quashing the re-assessment proceedings and dismiss this issue of Revenue’s appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल / MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (महावीर ससिंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (न्याययक सदस्य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER) मुिंबई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated: 30.08.2019 स दीप सरकार, व.यिजी सधिव / Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रयिसलपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधर्, आयकर अपीलीय अधर्करण, मुिंबई / DR, 5. ITAT, Mumbai गार्ा फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपत प्रयत //True Copy// उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुिंबई / ITAT, Mumbai