Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7325/Mum/2013 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACT4059M Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7377/Mum/2013 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 10-05-2019 AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
These cross appeals are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
6/IT.288/Rg.2(3)/09-10, dated Nil. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated 24.12.2009 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) upholding the validity of reopening and consequent reassessment order framed by the AO under section 143(3)/147 of the Act is void. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.1: -
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and thereby the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.”
In this case, the original Return of Income was filed on 28.11.2003 declaring total income at Rs. 274,17,21,702/- under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. A Revised Return of income along with revised Tax Audit Report and consolidated accounts, incorporating the results of the amalgamating company Hind Lever Chemicals Limited was filed on 30.03.2005 declaring the total income at Rs. 79,60,48,750/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 10.02.2006, determining total taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 71,43,86,208/-. While finalizing the assessment under section 143(3), the AO, though made certain additions/ disallowances, he however allowed the deduction under section 80(IA) of the Act at Rs. 44,45,60,665/- in respect of the Captive Consumption of power produced by the Power Plant at Mithapur and deduction under section 80M of the Act at Rs. 4,55,21,432/-. Subsequently, the AO issued two notices under section 154 of the Act on 16.05.2006 proposing to rectify the assessment on the allowability of the capital expenditure and bad debts written-off. The AO
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
also issued two more notices under section 154 of the Act on 26.05.2006 raising the issue of rectification in respect of deduction allowed under section 80(IA) of the Act on profits of the power Plant at Mitha and deduction allowed under section 80M of the Act. However, apparently, no order under section 154 of the Act was passed, though the assessee had furnished its reply in regard to above notices. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Mumbai served a noticed under section 263 of the Act on 09.03.2007 for the same assessment year i.e. AY 2003- 04, proposing to revise the assessment order on the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Detailed submissions were made by the assessee in response to the show cause notice and the CIT- II, Mumbai dropped the proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2008. 4. Subsequently, on the next date, i.e. on 27.03.2008, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the AO for reopening of the assessment of AY 2003-04. In response there-to, a request for providing a copy of the reasons recorded was made to the AO by the assessee. The AO provided the copy of the reasons recorded, vide letter dated 07.04.2008. The assessee requested the AO to treat the revised return filed on 30.03.2003 as the return in response to the notice under section 148. The reasons recorded are as under: -
“In the case of assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 10.02.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 71,43,86,208. On verification of the records, it is seen that the income has escaped assessment for the following reasons: -
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
i. In the original return, the assessee claimed bad debts written-off at Rs. 11,41,98,122 (Rs. 197 crore -185.58 crore). However, in the revised return in addition of deduction of Rs. 197 crores provisions written back, the assessee claimed bad debts written off at Rs. 185,58,01,878/-. Since, the amount is settled and receivable from Government, the only question is the taxability of the same which is in appeal before the CIT(A)/ ITAT. As such, only Rs. 114198122 was allowable as deduction as bad debt written off, as against Rs. 185,58,01,878/- wrongly allowed. This has resulted into an underassessment of Rs. 1,74,16,03,756/- (Rs. 185.58 cr. - 11.41 cr.).
ii. As per the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.M. Kharwa (1969) 72 ITR 603 (SC), one cannot enter into a business transaction with oneself. Similarly, as in the case of CIT vs. Merchant Navy Club (1974) 96 ITR 261 (AP), transaction must be bilateral. Before assessable profit can arise from a business, there must be two parties to the transaction, the person who makes the profit and the person from ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
whom the profits are made. In this case it is noticed that deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 44,45,60,664/- for the power plant at Mithapur was claimed @100%. As the power pant is for capital consumption, the profits as per the above ratio of decisions, does not arise. Accordingly, deduction under section 80IA is wrongly allowed.
iii. As per the Tax Audit report, the following capital expenditure have been debited to the profit and loss account.
…………………………..
The above items were added back in computation first, but claimed as deduction. As regards item No. 4 & 5, please refer to note 6 of the revised return:- Projects discontinued in existing line of business written-off are allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) based on various judicial pronouncements. The project stock written-off is claimed as allowable since the same is used as items for repair and maintenance for existing plant & Machinery.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
As there were used in existing Plant & Machinery, the stock should not have been written off. Thus, it is notices that all the above expenditure either capital in nature or should not be allowed as written-off. This has resulted into underassessment of Rs. 8,78,83,448/-.
iv. Dividend from a company received by a share holder is chargeable to tax. However, when such shareholder is a company, out of the dividend income, deduction under section 80M of the Act is allowed of the amount distributed as dividend to the shareholders if such distribution by the company takes place by the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, when such dividend is distributed by the recipient company on or after 01.04.2003 in terms of section 150O(1) of the Act, the said company has to pay dividend distribution tax at the prescribed rate. Once the tax is so pad on the dividend so distributed, the recipient company by virtue of section 115-O(5) of the Act, is not entitled to claim deduction of the amount so distributed in the computation of its income. In this case,
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
divided was distributed in the computation of its income. In this case, dividend was distributed for the year ended 31.03.2003 after 01.04.2003 and taxes paid thereon. Accordingly, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80M as state above.
In view of the above I have reason to believe that income to the extent as mentioned above, has escaped assessment for AY 2003-04 due to the above omissions. Therefore, the assessment is hereby reopened as per the provisions of section 147 by issuing notice under section 148.”
The assessee objected to the validity of the reopening of assessment and the objections of the assessee were disposed-off through a separate order passed by the AO on 16.09.2009. Thereafter, during the course of reassessment proceedings, various queries were made by the AO and the assessee furnished its reply in regard to the same. The reassessment order, as stated above, has been passed on 24.12.2009 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 288,76,80,410/- while making the following disallowance/ additions:
a. The claim of bad debts of Rs. 185,58,01,878/- disallowed;
b. Deduction u/s 80IA for Mithapur Power Plant at Rs. 44,45,60,665/- disallowed.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
c. Capital expenditure of Rs. 8,78,83,448/- added back to the total income;
d. Deduction under section 80M read with section 115-O at Rs. 4,55,21,432/- disallowed;
e. Claim of commission paid to directors at Rs. 30 lakhs not allowed.
f. Deductions under section 80HHC granted at Rs. 1,51,59,468/- by reducing the DEPB incentives.
g. Interest income of Rs. 7.92 crores (which was declared as business income) treated as ‘income from other sources’.
However, it is to be mentioned that the issues included in the reasons for reopening were as under: -
a. The claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act.
b. Claim of deduction under section 80M of the Act.
c. Expenses disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) & 37(1) of the Act.
d. Disallowance of claim of bad debts.
Against the above reopening of the assessment and the disallowance/ additions made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A) reopening was challenged and he quashed the reopening in regard to the following issues: -
a. The claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act.
b. Claim of deduction under section 80M of the Act.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
c. Expenses disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) read with section 37(1) of the Act.
d. Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act.
But, the CIT(A) sustained the reopening on the issue of claim of bad debts by observing in Para 6.13 to 6.26 as under: -
“6.13 Coming to the issue of the claim of bad debts of ₹ 185,58,01,878/- as discussed above although the same was raised by the AO during the rectification proceedings under section 154, he had no powers to pass any order against the appellant under Section 154, as the issue was debatable. Neither this issue was considered by CIT-2, Mumbai during proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The facts of this issue are that during the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the appellant had declared fertiliser subsidy received from the Government on an adhoc estimate basis. While filing the return of income, the appellant had claimed that only that subsidy amount which is notified by the Government is chargeable to tax and accordingly the excess amount was claimed as deduction and not taxable. Appellant's claim was rejected by the CIT(A) in both the years and the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, for escalation, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, deduction was claimed in ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
subsequent years on the same principle. This claim was also rejected at the time of assessment and the appellant filed appeal before CIT(A). The fact that on this issue, the appeals of the appellant were pending before ITAT/ CIT(A) at the relevant time, indicates that the issue of allowability was debatable as to in which year such claim is allowable.
6.14 Further facts on this issue are that the appellant, during the financial years relevant to assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 made provision for contingencies in relation to fertiliser subsidy at Rs.120 crores and Rs.77 crores respectively aggregating to Rs.197 crores by way of debit to Profit and Loss Account. While filing the Return of Income, this amount was not claimed as a deduction but a disclosure was made by way of a note. In the current year, the said amount of Rs.197 crores has been reversed and written back. Since the provision of Rs.197 crores was suo-moto disallowed in the computation of income in the respective years (i.e. in AYs 2000-2001 and 2001-2002), the same on credit to Profit and Loss account has been excluded from taxable income in the current year.
6.15 Against the adhoc income accounted in financial years relevant to assessment years
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
1995-96 and 1996-97 and also in subsequent years, the appellant's claim was finalised during the current year at Rs.1,85,58,01,878/-. The taxability or otherwise of this amount i.e. Rs.1,85,58,01,878/- and the write off of excess amount i.e. Rs 1,41,98,122/- which could even be more, as rightly stated by the appellant, will depend upon the final appellate decisions of earlier years starting from assessment year 1995-96. 6.16 It may be seen that the issue of allowance/disallowance of the claim of Rs.1,85,58,01,878/- was not at all considered during the course of original assessment proceedings- Further, this was an issue, which could not have been decided by the AO during the rectification proceedings initiated vide notice dated 16.05.2006 under section 154 and that is why, perhaps no order was passed by the AO after receiving the reply of the appellant. Therefore, the reopening on the basis of non- allowability of the claim of bad debts of Rs. 1.85,58,01,878/- has to be upheld.
6.17 Coming to the applicability of various case- laws vis-a-vis the issue of reopening on account of non-allowability of the claim of bad debts of Rs.1,85,58,01,878/- as cited by the appellant, in the background of the facts discussed above, it ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
is evident that the above decisions shall not apply to this issue. I do not consider it necessary to discuss the all of the above decisions individually, and only a few illustrations shall be enough. As per provisions of section 147:
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 and 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 re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ……………………….
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 assessment year, unless any income
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
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:
6.18 Further. Explanation-2(c)(i) below section 147 provides that a case where income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed shall also be deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
6.19 In the case of the appellant therefore, it shall be relevant to ascertain as to whether the AO has re-opened the assessment on the basis of 'reason to believe or mere 'change of opinion'. The appellant pleads that the issue of claim of bad debts, being considered at the time of original assessment proceedings is evident from 'Notes 4a and 4c to the computation of income filed with revised return of income'. 'The same is also evident from page No. 2 of the audited profit and loss account'. However, this argument of the appellant is not correct vis-a-vis the above provisions of section 147 of the Act.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
6.20 In the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) cited by the appellant, the facts were that the assessee maintained Guest Houses, whose expenses were claimed at Rs. 2,42,441/- (Rs. 1,76,000/- for rent and Rs. 66,441/- for depreciation) by way of revised return for AY 1987-88 and in assessment order passed under section 143(3), the said claim to the extent of Rs. 91,485/- was disallowed. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened on 20.04.1990 inter- alia on the basis of the similar reason that further disallowance in respect of guest house expenses was required to be made. Additionally, the AO also had recorded the reason that the claim of interest of Rs. 41.28 lacs pertaining to earlier assessment years was also liable to be disallowed. Furthermore, in that case, the AO purported to have relied upon the order of CIT(A) for AY 1986-87 dated 27.07.1990, although the assessment was reopened before this i.e. on 20.04.1990. Hence on these facts the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court held the reopening to be invalid, as it was on the basis of mere ‘change of opinion'.
6.21 The facts in the case of the appellant are completely different, as in its case, the reopening is based on an issue which was ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
never considered during the original assessment proceedings. The plea of the appellant that the issue was considered because it had appended 'Notes 4a and 4c to the computation of income filed with revised return of income is not justified. This aspect has been explained by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd, 281 ITR 394, after considering their own full bench decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd, 259 ITR 19. The facts are that the assessee, who was engaged in the business of Import agency, had received interest free advances/deposits from its principals to pay the import bills. However, in the intervening period, these were used to earn interest income, which according to the assessee were incidental to its business. The regular assessment proceedings were completed on 27.09.2000 u/s 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the assessee claimed to have furnished all the details of expenses, including import expenses comprising interest, foreign exchange fluctuation, rebate/discount, LC charges, bank charges and Hundi charges. The AO reopened the assessment on the ground that expenses claimed against interest on supplier credit,
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
foreign exchange fluctuation, rebate and discount, LC charges and others and Hundi charges have no relation to any sources of income of the assessee and hence these have been wrongly claimed and allowed. Besides, the expenses of Rs.7,27,000/- incurred to earn exempt dividend income were also liable to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. On the basis of above facts, the Hon'ble High Court held that the original assessment order did not admittedly address itself to the question which the AO proposed to examine in the course of re- assessment proceedings and there can be no presumption that even when the assessment order is silent (on a certain issue), all possible angles and aspects of a controversy have been examined and determined by the AO. Thus, the reopening was held to be valid. The relevant portions of this decision areas under: -
it is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under s. 147 are whether the AO has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to s. 147. Explanation 1 to the ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence front which the AO could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period of limitation for action in cases where the escapement arises out of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation 2 to s. 147, on the other hand, stipulates the circumstances in which income chargeable to tax shall be deemed to have escaped assessment. It reads thus:
"Explanation 2: For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:
(a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
amount which is not chargeable to income-tax;
(b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the AO that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return;
(c) where an assessment has been made but—
(1) income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed; or (ii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act;
(iii) excessive kiss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.' –
The above would show that cases falling in ci. (c) of Expln. 2 (supra) in which income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or cases in which income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or where excessive loss or deprecation allowance or any other
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
allowance under the Act has been computed, would constitute cases of income escaping assessment. There is considerable authority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings would depend upon whether he has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A long string of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have emphasized that the belief of the AO must be in good faith and must not be a mere pretence. The apex Court has further held that there must be a nexus between the material before the AO and the belief which he forms regarding the escapement of the assessee's income. A writ Court, therefore, is entitled to examine whether the AO's belief was in good faith and whether such reasons had a nexus with the action proposed to be taken.
It is common ground that in the present case the AO had not received any additional information from any outside source or quarter but the fact that there was no such information did not make any material difference. Action under s. 147 was permissible even if the AO gathered
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
his reasons to believe from the very same record as had been the subject-matter of the completed assessment proceedings. What Mr. Vohra argued was that the AO could not, on the basis of the very same material as was available to him at the time of assessment, initiate action under s. 147, for doing so, would constitute action based entirely on a change in his opinion. The contention is that if the material was available to the AO and if an assessment order based on that material is passed by him, a reassessment using the very some material or inferences available from that material should tantamount to a mere change of opinion, which cannot, according to the petitioner, constitute a valid ground for reassessment.
6.22 The appellant has also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437 (SC). It may be noted that this decision has already been considered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd (supra).
6.23 In the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited (supra) cited by the appellant, the AO
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
reopened the assessment of AY 2003-04, which was earlier completed under section 143(3), on the ground that the plan of building in which assessee operates was sanctioned way back in 1988 and the same premises were earlier used by some other party. It was also alleged by the AO that the copy of plan was not filed in earlier assessment. The assessee contended before the Hon'ble High Court that the information which is the basis of re-assessment was filed by the assessee in 1988, during the course of assessment and there is no new material with the AO. It was held that the assessee had disclosed the primary facts truly and correctly and there was no new material with the AO. Hence, the reopening was held to be invalid. It may be seen that this decision is not applicable to the case of the appellant, in view of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd (supra) vis-a-vis the facts of the case of the appellant.
6.24 In the case of Cartini India Limited (supra), cited by the appellant, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that assessment cannot be re- opened, if it is based on the material, which were already on record. In that case, the assessee had claimed entire expenditure
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
pertaining to "Project Launch" as revenue expenditure even though in its books, the same was spread over a period of three years. Similarly, the assessee had treated the tools, dies, jigs and moulds as inventory items and claimed deduction on the basis of their balance useful life on the last day of the previous year. During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the particulars of assessee's claims inter-alia relating to above two claims and after considering the assessee's reply, the Assessing Officer allowed both the claims to the appellant. The High Court held that where the material on record has already been considered, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disagree with the view already taken on such material on record and hence, re- opening of assessment cannot be sustained. It was held that in such a case, the reopening is based on mere "change of opinion" and hence, the same is invalid. As is evident, the facts in the case of the appellant are different so far as the claim of bad debts of Rs.1,85,58.01,878/- is concerned because the same was never considered during the course of original assessment proceedings. This view as already stated above is supported by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd (supra).
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
6.25 In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that in the original assessment order, the AO did not admittedly address himself to the question of bad debts, which he proposed to examine in the course of reassessment proceedings. The argument of the appellant that the reopening of assessment was based only upon a 'change of opinion so far as the claim of bad debts was concerned is not justified. There can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent, all possible angles and aspects of a controversy had been examined and determined by the AO. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening a completed assessment would be applicable only to a situation where the AO has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision in respect of a particular issue. It will have no application where the order of assessment does not address itself to the aspect which is the basis for reopening of the assessment, as is the position in the present case.
6.26 Under section 147, the AO has power to reopen the assessment for the reason that an item of income chargeable to income tax, which was not the subject matter of original assessment proceedings, has escaped
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
assessment. Hence in view of the discussion and facts outlined above, the reopening cannot be held to be invalid so far as the issue non- aIlowability of deduction in respect of bad debts was concerned. The reopening on this ground is therefore upheld. The re-assessment is order is also upheld be valid and legal on this ground.”
Aggrieved, assessee came in second appeal before Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) upholding the reopening in respect to the claim of bad debts amounting to ₹ 185,58,01,878/-. However, it is to be mentioned that Revenue has neither filed any ground of appeal nor raised any issue in respect to the quashing of reopening by CIT(A) on the above three issues. Hence, qua these three issues, when the CIT(A) has quashed the reassessment proceedings, the issues have become final.
Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee in its revised return of income filed on 30.03.2005 along with computation has clearly made a claim of fertilizer subsidy written back in the books of account of the assessee in the financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96 as under: -
Provisions for contingencies in relation to fertilizer subsidy written 1970000000 back in book snot taxable since the same were disallowed in AY 2000-01 & 2001-02 in which the provisions were made (Refer Note 4 b) Amount of fertilizer subsidy written off as bad debts in relation to 1533330526 excess income accounted in books in financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96 (Refer Note 4 a and 4c) Further amounts written off (net) as bad debts in relation to escalation 322471352 claims and interest subsidy for financial years 1996-97 to 2001-02 (Refer Note 4 A and 4c)
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through “notes forming part of computation of income and particularly note No. 4 a, b, c, which read as under: -
“4 a. During the financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96 fertilizer was accounted in the books on an adhoc basis. While filing the return of income, against the adhoc amount the assessee company claimed that only that subsidy amount which is notified by the Government is chargeable to tax and accordingly the excess amount was claimed as deduction and not table. Assessee’s claim was rejected by the CIT(A) in both the years and presently assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly for escalation, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, deduction was claimed in subsequent years (i.e. financial years 1996-97 to 200-01) on the same principle. This claim was also rejected at the time of assessment and assessee is in appeal before CIT(A).
b. During the financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 the company had made provision for contingencies in relation to fertilizer subsidy of ₹ 120 crores and 77 crores respectively aggregating to ₹ 197 crores by way of debit to profit and loss account. While filing the Return of income this amount was not claimed as a deduction but a disclosure was made by ay of ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
note. In the current year, the said amount of ₹ 197 crores has been written back . Since the provision of ₹ 197 crores was disallowed in the computation of income in the respective years, the same on credit to profit and Loss account is excluded from table income in the current year.
c. Against the adhoc subsidy income accounted in financial year 1994-=95 and 1995- 96, the company’s claim was finalized during the year and accordingly ₹ 153,33,30,526/- was written off in the books as bad debts. Similarly write off during the year in relation to escalation claims and interest subsidy was₹ 32,24,71,352/- . Thus, the total write off during the year was ₹ 185,58,01,878/-. We are claiming these two amounts as an allowable deduction on the ground that in the earlier years our claim that these items are not taxable was rejected by the department and the tax demand thereon was raised and recovered. In case, at any appellate stage our claim of non taxability of subsidy income as also escalation claims, interest subsidy and freight subsidy is upheld then this claim shall automatically stand withdrawn.”
The learned Counsel for the assessee explained that this information was available before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and AO has framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 10.02.2006. It was contended
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
that the AO has taken note of this fact that a revise returns along with the revise tax audit report and consolidated accounts (incorporating the working results of Hind Liver Chemicals Ltd. for the FY 2002-03 relevant to AY 2003-04 which was merged with the assessee company) was filed on 30.03.2005. The learned Counsel contended that subsequently on 16.05.2006 the AO issued notice under section 154 of the Act making proposal for rectification in assessee’s case and the relevant issue regarding claim of bad debt was raised as under: -
“In the original return, the assessee claimed bad debts written-off at ₹ 11,41,98,122/- (₹ 197 crores- 185.58 crore). However, in the revised return, in addition to deduction of ₹ 197 crores as provision written back, the assessee claimed bad debts written off at ₹ 185,58,01,878/-. Since the amount is settled and receivable from Government, the only question is the taxability of the same which is in appeal before the CIT(A)/ ITAT. As such, only ₹ 111,41,98,122/- was allowable as deduction as bad debt written off, as against ₹ 185,58,01,878/- wrongly allowed. This has resulted into an under assessment of ₹ 174,16,03,756/- (₹ 185.58 crore-11.41 crore).
The above mistake, being apparent from records, is to be rectified under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. You are, therefore, requested to submit your clarification, if any, on the above issues on or before 22.05.2006 so as ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
to enable the undersigned to pass the necessary rectification.”
The learned counsel explained that this was answered vide letter dated 22.05.2006 explaining the claim of write off of fertilizer subsidy as bad debts amounting to ₹ 185,58,01,878/- as under: -
“The fact is in relation to the above claim are stated as under:
During the financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96 fertilizer subsidy was accounted in the books on an adhoc basis. While filing the return of income against the adhoc amount of assessee company claimed that only that subsidy amount which is notified by the Government is chargeable to tax and accordingly the excess amount was claimed as deduction and not taxable. Assessee’s claim was rejected by the CIT(A) in both the years and presently assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly for escalation, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, deduction was claimed in subsequent years (i.e. financial years 1996-97 to 2000-01) on the on the same principle. This claim was also rejected at the time of assessment and assessee is in appeal before CIT(A).
Against the adhoc subsidy income accounted in financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96, the company’s claim was finalized during the year
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
and accordingly ₹ 153,33,30,526/- was written off in the books as bad debts. Similarly write off during the year in relation to escalation claims and interest subsidy was ₹ 32,24,71,352/-. Thus, the total write off during the year was ₹ 185,58,01,878/-. This amount was claimed as an allowable deduction on the ground that in the earlier years our claim that these items are not taxable was rejected by the department and the tax demand thereon was raised and recovered. In case, at any appellate stage our claim of non- taxability of subsidy income as also escalation claims, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, is upheld then this claim shall automatically stand withdrawn.
In this connection, we also invite reference to page 2 of the audited profit and loss account for the year under reference filed with the revised return and revised tax audit report wherein the entire amount of ₹ 185.58 crores is written off as bad debts. The said write off is in relation to fertilizer subsidy which was earlier accounted as income on an adhoc basis. In fact, this is the total amount written off as bad debts non longer recoverable from the FICC and not the final amount settled. As such there is no mistake apparent from record which needs to be rectified.”
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
According to the learned Counsel this rectification was never carried out and no order till date has passed. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated the fact that during the FY 1994-95 and 1995-96 the assessee had accounted the fertilizer subsidy-in the books on an adhoc basis. While filing the return of income, against the adhoc amount it claimed that, only that amount of subsidy, which is notified by the Government, is chargeable to tax and accordingly the excess amount was claimed as deduction and not taxable. The assessee’s claim was rejected by the Revenue. Similarly, for escalation, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, deduction was claimed in subsequent years (i.e. FYs 1996-97 to 2000-01) on the same principle. This claim was also rejected at the time of assessment. Against the adhoc subsidy income accounted in FYs 1994-95 and 1995-96. The assessee’s claim was finalized during the year under consideration and accordingly Rs. 153,33,30,526/- was written off in the books as bad debts. Similarly, it had written off escalation claims and interest subsidy was Rs.32,24,71,352/- in its books. Thus, the total write off during the year was Rs.185,58,01,878/-. This amount was claimed as an allowable deduction on the ground that in the earlier years the assessee claimed that these items are not taxable was rejected by the department and the tax demand thereon was raised and recovered. In this connection, the assessee’s counsel drew our attention to page 2 of the audited Profit and Loss Account for the year under reference filed with the revised return and revised tax audit report wherein the entire amount of Rs. 185,58,01,878/- is written off as bad debts. The said write off is in relation to fertilizer subsidy which was earlier accounted as income on an adhoc basis. In fact, this is the total amount written off as bad debts no longer recoverable from the Fertilizer Ministry. It was claimed that the loss is allowable as a deduction in terms of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. We noted
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
that Fertilizer Subsidy accounted in Books was added to the income and taxed in A.Ys. 1995-96, 1997-98. The said subsidy amount which was not received was written off in Books as bad debt in the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, both the conditions as to the amount being considered in computing the income of the assessee and the same being written off as bad debts in the Books of Accounts are satisfied in the case under consideration. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the Mumbai ITAT in the assessee’s own case for AY 1995-96 ITA no 2658/Mum/02 along with the Miscellaneous Application No 494/Mum/2006 for AY 1996-97 in ITA No. 5728/Mum/2004 directed that the subsidy income has to be recognized as per the notification from FICC. The relevant extracts of the same is reproduced below:
"On these facts and after taking into account the co-ordinate bench decision of the earlier year we set aside the issue of the file of the assessing officer with the direction to recognize income to the extent of subsidy calculated on the basis of final notification given by FICC on the issue."
We may also point out that on this issue, the CIT had served a notice under section 263 of the Act on 5th March 2007, proposing to revise the assessment on the above issue. However, based on the detailed submissions made in response to the show cause notice vide letters dated 26.04.2007, 16.07.2007 and 01.08.2007 the Commissioner of dropped the proposed proceedings under section 263 vide order dt.26th March 2008. In view of the above, the learned Counsel stated that the reopening is mere change of opinion and nothing else.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, heavily relied on the disposal of the objections by the AO on reopening of assessment and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted from the facts of the case that the assessee against the adhoc subsidy income accounted in financial year 1994-95 and 1995-96, the company’s claim was finalized during the year and accordingly ₹ 153,33,30,526/- was written off in the books as bad debts. Similarly write off during the year in relation to escalation claims and interest subsidy was ₹ 32,24,71,352/-. Thus, the total write off during the year was ₹ 185,58,01,878/-. This amount was claimed as an allowable deduction on the ground that in the earlier years these items are not taxable, was rejected by the department and the tax demand thereon was raised and recovered. Now, before us, it was also conceded that in any case, at any appellate stage the assessee’s claim of non- taxability of subsidy income as also escalation claims, interest subsidy and freight subsidy, is upheld then this claim shall automatically stand withdrawn. In this connection, our attention was invited to page 2 of the audited profit and loss account for the year under reference filed with the revised return and revised tax audit report wherein the entire amount of ₹ 185.58 crores is written off as bad debts. The said write off is in relation to fertilizer subsidy which was earlier accounted as income on an adhoc basis. In fact, this is the total amount written off as bad debts no longer recoverable from the FICC and not the final amount settled. This claim was allowed by the AO in the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and even rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act and the Revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act was finally not taken to conclusion. In the given facts and circumstances
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
when all the facts were available before the AO during the original proceedings and he has gone through the entire details of the claim of bad debt. Even there is no tangible material came to the notice of the AO, which can show that the income has escaped from tax. Hence, we are of the view that this is clearly a change of opinion.
For this proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Plus Paper Food PAC Ltd. vs. ITO (2015) 374 ITR 485 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble High Court has considered that the original assessment order passed and taken into consideration the aspect of depreciation on perusal of documents and details called for and which were filed. It was further observed that there did not appear tangible material / reason to reopen the assessment proceedings by the AO in the facts of that case. Hon’ble Bombay High Court has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Hindustand Liver Ltd. Vs. Wadkar (R.B), ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and also Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) and held as under:
“13. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 has not been issued after the expiry of four years, but within four years. Therefore, the assessee must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and which alone will enable him to 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 ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
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. In the present case, what is referred to by the Assessing Officer is Explanation-2 (c)(i). What we find from a reading of the impugned notice and the order rejecting the objections is that the Assessing Officer invokes the deeming fiction in Explanation 2. He, therefore, holds that the reasons recorded by him would show that assessment has been made but income chargeable to tax has been underassessed or such income has been assessed at too low a rate. There is also reference made to excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance which has been computed under this Act. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Suresh Kumar is that there are reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He would also submit that in the light of Explanation-2 and the deeming fiction therein it is valid ground to presume that the loss or the depreciation allowance has to be recomputed. That has not been properly computed and rather there is an underassessment in respect thereof in the prior assessment.
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
We are unable to agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar and for more than one reason. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on going through the changes made to section 147 of the Act, it is clear that prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under the two conditions which have been noted in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), but in section 147 of the Act from 1st April, 1989, they were given a go-by and one condition has remained viz. that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment he has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Though the power to reopen is much wider, but the interpretation that the words "reason to believe" must receive an interpretation which is in consonance with the scheme of the law. There cannot be arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer has no power to review. He has only a power to reassess. In the garb of reopening the assessment review cannot take place. This view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court binds us. We have tested the impugned orders and the notice in the present case on this touchstone. In a somewhat similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Titanor Components
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 805, referred to the amended section 147 after 1st April, 1989 and all its provisions and explanation and held as under :
'4. According to the learned Counsel, the Revenue is entitled to issue such a notice if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee (a) to make a return under section 139 or (b) in response to a notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 or section 148 or (c) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. Since the first two conditions are not pleaded by the Respondents, it is the submission of the Petitioner that the notice is wholly unwarranted and invalid since there is no allegation whatsoever that the Petitioner has failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. This submission can be considered only with reference to the reasons put forth by the Respondents for issuing the notice. The letter dated 27-1-2005, inter alia, states that the Assessment Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment because the Petitioner has wrongly claimed deduction under section 80IA in respect of ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
income which was not derived from the income of the Petitioner's Unit of Kundaim. Further, that long term capital gains have been wrongly claimed by the assessee which have been wrongly considered for the set off of the Unit of Kundaim which has resulted in escapement of income. Nowhere has the Assessing Officer 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 Assessing Officer to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in assessment. Moreover, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to first observe whether there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and having observed that there is such a failure to proceed under section 147. It must follow that where the Assessing officer does not record such a failure he would not be ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
entitled to proceed under section 147. As observed earlier, the Assessing Officer has not recorded the failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment year 1997-98. What is recorded is that the Petitioner has wrongly claimed certain deductions which he was not entitled to. There is a well known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts fully and truly. It is only in the latter case that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to proceed under section 147. We are supported in this view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2004 (5) Mh.LJ 353 = (2004) 268 ITR 0332 where in a similar case the Division Bench held that the reason that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly that all material facts must be read as recorded by the Assessing Officer and it would not be permissible to delete or add to those reasons and that the Assessing Officer must be able to justify the same based on material record. The Division Bench observed as follows :
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
"He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence.'
In the present case, the order dated 4th February, 2015, Annexure M proceeds on the footing that the case records indicate that the issues involved in reassessment proceedings were never examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer without looking into the issues allowed the claim which is not permissible. However, beyond making a reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. case (supra), nothing has been stated or observed.
A complete reading of the notice dated 18th November, 2013, would indicate that the Assessing Officer proposes to reassess the income because the assessee claimed set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to 1997-98 to 1999-2000 amounting to Rs.2,70,12,040/- against long term capital gain along with current year's losses of Rs.6,81,54,185/-. This was the position emerging from the return filed on 29th
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
September, 2009, which was thereafter selected for scrutiny and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 7th December, 2011. The reasons disclose that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that this unabsorbed depreciation of more than eight years old could not have been set off against long term capital gain. A judicial precedent has been referred in the reasons and it has been opined that the unabsorbed depreciation may be allowable under the new provision but has to be dealt with in accordance with the old provision and is subject to the limitation of being eligible for set off only against business income and for eight years. Thus, unabsorbed depreciation of the above assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 is not eligible for relief granted having regard to section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, in assessment year 2002-03. The omission has resulted in incorrect set off of unabsorbed depreciation thereby leading to short levy of tax.
Then, there is a reference to deduction of bad debts written off and even with regard thereto, what we find is that the bad debts written off and to the tune of Rs.36,72,286/- is also not an adjustment specified under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. This has resulted in understatement of book profits to the extent
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
indicated in the reasons leading to short levy of tax. If the assessee has not made full and true disclosure of income and its particulars in the return or during the assessment proceedings, then, we do not see how these figures have been derived by the Assessing officer. In one breath he says that he has perused the records and which reveals the above position. At the same time, he holds that the petitioner has not made full and true disclosure of income and its particulars in the return or during assessment proceedings. This contradiction and inconsistency in the reasons would indicate that the necessary satisfaction in terms of statutory provision has not been recorded at all. This would be further clear if one refers to the other reason viz. that the income has escaped assessment and also in view of sub-clause (I) of clause (c) of Explanation-2 to section 147 of the Act if income chargeable to tax has been underassessed. Such recording of reasons can never be termed as satisfactory. There is either a satisfaction based on the income escaping assessment by virtue of it being chargeable to tax and, therefore, reassessment and in terms of substantive provision is required. The satisfaction can also be said to be that the case is covered by the deeming fiction and the income chargeable to tax has escaped
ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
assessment by virtue of Explanation 2 clause (a), (b), (ba) and (c) and (d). However, if one refers to the failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of income, then, what the Assessing Officer has in mind is the first proviso to section 147. That enables reassessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of 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. In the present case, both are referred viz. the first proviso to section 147 and Explanation 2 thereof. However, this is not a case where action under section 147 is taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year but it is within four years period. Thus, this proviso cannot be of any assistance. At the same time, the Assessing Officer says that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and also in view of sub-clause (1) of clause (c) of Explanation-2. The Court cannot be called upon to indulge in guess work or speculate as to ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
which reason has enabled the Assessing Officer to act in terms of this section. If more than one reason is assigned as in this case then the Court can sustain the notice only if it is of the opinion that an erroneous reference to a statutory provision has been made but still there is an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and on account of which issuance of notice is justified. Which ground is sufficient to sustain the notice is something which must be indicated in clear terms and should not be a matter of speculation or guess work.
We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. In our view the entire approach of the Assessing Officer in the facts of the present case is misconceived. The assessment order in the present case has obviously taken into account the aspect of depreciation. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that all relevant documents and details as called for were filed. It is further recorded in paragraph 3 of the assessment order that the details of assessing company alongwith return of income and those which were called for assessment proceedings were scrutinised. There does not appear to the tangible material/reason for the assessing officer to ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
reopen the assessment proceedings in the facts of the present case. The reasons offered by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the objection that the issues involved in reassessment proceedings were never examined by the Assessing Officer are not tenable. No particulars whatsoever has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the objections.
The facts reveal and we are satisfied that in the present case, the order of reopening of the assessment will not be justified. The decision to reopen assessment is not based on proper reasons but obviously is a result of change of opinion. This is impermissible. In the case of ECGC, there was specific finding that there existed tangible material and reason to reopen the assessment and that was evident from the record in that case. It is not the case of the Revenue that in this case any new material was forwarded to the Assessing Officer. In any event we are not called upon to decide on the merits of the case and the proposed reopening is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the petition must succeed. We, therefore, pass the following order :
The impugned notice dated 18.11.2013 being Exhibit "H" to the petition issued under section ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 2009-10 and the order dated 4th February, 2015 rejecting objections of the petitioner passed by Respondent No.1 are hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs.”
In view of the above facts that the AO has considered the issue of the additional claim of bad debt of ₹ 185,58,01,878/- as per the revised return of income and allowed the claim while passing order under section 143(3) of the Act. There is proper disclosure of facts relating to the additional claim of bad debts, these items have been examined by the AO while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, even these items have been relooked after issuing notice under section 154 of the Act and also CIT while exercising revision power under section 263 of the Act issued notice to the assessee and thereafter dropped the proceedings. The assessee while filing return of income against the adhoc amount claimed only that amount of subsidy which is notified by the government is chargeable to tax and accordingly, the excess amount was claimed as deduction as not taxable in the FYs 1994-95 and 1995- 96. This claim was rejected and tax was recovered. Similarly, for escalation interest subsidy and freight subsidy deduction was claimed in subsequent years i.e. FYs 1996-97 to 2000-01 and these claim were also rejected. Against the adhoc subsidy accounted in FY 1994-95 and 1995- 96 the assessee’s claim was finalized during the year and accordingly a sum of ₹ 153,33,30,526/- was written off in the books of account as bad debt and write off during the year as escalation claim and interest subsidy of ₹ 32,24,71,352/-. This amount was claimed as allowable deduction and this was allowed on the basis that in the earlier years the claim of the 46 ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013
assessee was rejected and tax was paid. The entire facts were available before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and hence, the reopening is just a change of opinion, which is not permissible for reopening of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. Hence, we quash the reassessment proceeding and allow the appeal of the assessee. 16. As we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, we are refraining from adjudication of the appeal of the revenue which is on merits. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed as it has become academic. 17. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.05.2019. (महावीर स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (जी. मंजुनाथ /G MANJUNATHA) (लेखा दस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (न्याययक दस्य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER) मुिंबई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated:10.05.2019. स दीप सरकार, व.निजी सधिव / Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
47 ITAs No. 7325&7377/Mum/2013 आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुिंबई / DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, त्यावपत प्रयत //// उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt.