JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6698/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shri Deepesh Jain, CA : Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-DR Department by Date of hearing : 16-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 08-06-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.12.2016 of the CIT(A)- 1, Gurgaon relating to assessment year 2005-06. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the original return of income in this was filed by the assessee company on 31.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.1,46,94,07,460/-. The assessee company is engaged in generation of power and manufacturing of sponge iron & other steel products etc. The said return was processed on 24.02.2006. Later a revised return was filed on 30.03.2007 reducing the income originally returned to Rs.92,06,88,890/-. The assessment

2 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

was completed u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income of

Rs.2,12,42,01,723/- making the various additions. Subsequently, the Assessing

Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by recording the

following reasons :-

“Reasons U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : On completion of scrutiny assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007, returned income of Rs.1,46,94,07,460/- was enhanced by the AO to Rs.2,12,42,01,723/- making certain additions. Subsequently, it has been noticed that deduction under Section 80IB of the Act has been allowed in this case at Rs.41,20,57,046/-; being 100% of the income/profits of the Mini Blast Furnace Unit of the assessee. It has further transpired that accumulated losses upto the A/Y 2004- 05 amounting to Rs.8,53,95,939/-, were required to be reduced for working-out allowable deduction U/s 80IB from the income of this Unit in view of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(5) of the Act, but the same have not been reduced resulting into excess allowance of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act to this extent. Hence, the assessee has not disclosed fully & truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.8,83,95,939/- has escaped assessment for the A/Y 2005-06.”

assessment proceedings as well as the various additions made by the Assessing

Officer on merit. Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessment order against which the

appeal has been filed before him has already been set-aside by the then the ld.

CIT, Hisar by his order dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and the

Assessing Officer has been directed to pass a fresh order. He, therefore,

confronted the assessee to explain as to why the appeal filed by the assessee

should not be dismissed being infructuous. The assessee made elaborate

3 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

submissions regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The assessee also

challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings.

3.1 However, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by

observing as under :-

“3.2 I have carefully considered the appellant’s submissions. It is an undisputed fact on record that the order against which the present appeal has been filed has already been set aside by the CIT, Hisar u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. The only addition made in the order under appeal was addition u/s 80IB. This addition has been set aside by the CIT, Hisar and no addition survives in the original order. It is also a fact on record that the AO has already passed a fresh assessment order in accordance with the direction given by the CIT, Hisar vide order u/s 263 of the IT Act. 3.3 In view of the aforesaid facts there is no addition or disallowance which can be considered for adjudication at this stage. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant has became in-fructuous and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant may take any ground of appeal for the appeal which he may file against the fresh assessment order passed by the AO in accordance with the direction given by CIT, Hisar u/s 263 of the IT Act. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed.” 3.4

before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :-

“1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order dated 04.03.2013 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), holding the same to be infructuous. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as infructuous on the ground that the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 passed under section 147 was subsequently set aside by the CIT under section 263 on the issue of computation of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant challenging assumption of jurisdiction and validity of reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 passed under section 143/147 of the Act. 1.3 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that validity of subsequent revisionary order under section 263 of the Act was dependent upon the validity of reassessment order challenged in appeal and consequently, the appeal filed was not rendered infructuous merely on account of passing of subsequent revisionary order.

4 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

1.4 That the CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the reassessment order had been set aside by the CIT under section 263 to the limited extent of examining issue relating to deduction under sections 80IA/80IB of the Act and not in toto and therefore, the appeal was not rendered infructuous. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013, passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act to be beyond jurisdiction, barred by limitation, bad in law and void ab initio. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not quashing reassessment order since the reassessment proceedings were completed without following the mandatory procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO: 259 ITR 19. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding reassessment order to be illegal and bad in law, being based on mere change of opinion/reappraisal of existing material/information. 2.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding that initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act was barred by limitation prescribed in first proviso to that section. 2.4 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding that reassessment order passed under section 147, in contravention of provisions of sections 149 to 151 of the Act, was invalid and bad in law. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding that losses of Rs.8,83,95,939 pertaining to the unit eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act for earlier years, which already stood set off against profits for those years, were not required to be notionally brought forward and set off while computing eligible profits of the year under consideration. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not deleting interest charged under section 2340 of the Act. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not reversing the action of the assessing officer in withdrawing interest under section 244A of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

CIT(A) in treating the appeal filed by the assessee before him as infructuous,

illegal and bad in law.

5.1 Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the original assessment was

completed u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at

5 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

Rs.2,12,42,01,723/-. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 23.03.2012. The reasons

recorded show that the issue on which re-assessment proceeding has been

initiated is that loss of earlier assessment years of Mini Blast Furnace (MBF)

unit, qua which deduction u/s 80IB was claimed, which were adjusted against

taxable profits of earlier years, were required to be notionally carried forward

and set off/adjusted against the current year profits of that unit while computing

deduction u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act. He submitted that without disposing of the

preliminary legal objections of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to

pass the re-assessment order dated 04.03.2013 wherein he reduced eligible

deduction of MBF unit from 41.20 crores to 32.36 crores, after adjusting

notional loss of Rs.8.83 crores pertaining to earlier assessment years. He

submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the ld.

CIT(A), revisionary proceedings were initiated by the CIT vide show cause

notice dated 22.10.2013, which culminated into order dated 27.03.2015 passed

u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, whereby the CIT has set aside the reassessment order on

the limited issues of examination of deduction u/s 80IA/80IB of the I.T. Act.

The appeal against the said order passed u/s 263 is also pending before the

Tribunal. In the aforesaid appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment

order dated 04.03.2013, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 01.12.2013,

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging (a) validity of

6 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

reassessment order dated 04.03.2016 on jurisdictional grounds; and (b)

disallowance of deduction on merits on the ground that the said appeal had

become infructuous as addition/disallowance made in the reassessment order

dated 04.03.2016 was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act.

ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment order was set aside

by the CIT exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to the limited

extent of examining issues relating to deduction under sections 80lA/80IB of the

Act. In other words, the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 under section 147

of the Act was not set aside by CIT in toto. Referring to various decisions, he

submitted that where the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power under

section 263 of the Act sets aside the assessment, the assessment is not

completely effaced; only the issues set aside by the CIT in the order under

section 263 of the Act are to be adjudicated afresh by the assessing officer.

Therefore, the reassessment dated 04.03.2013 challenged in appeal before the

CIT(A) was not set aside in toto but only to the extent of re-examining the claim

of deduction under sections 80-IA / 80-1B as indicated in the order passed under

section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is not

completely effaced so as to result in the appeal being rendered infructuous, as

held/claimed by the CIT(A). For the above proposition, he relied on the

7 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

decisions in the case of Express Newspaper (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 255 ITR

137 (Mad.) and in the case of CIT v. HH Lekshmi Bai reported in 203 ITR 398

(Ker.).

jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the CIT assumed that the reassessment

order dated 04.03.2013 was validly passed. In the appeal against the impugned

reassessment order, the primary issue raised, as stated above, was challenge to

the validity/ legality of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In case the

appellant is to succeed in demonstrating that jurisdiction under section 147 of

the Act was not validly assumed, then, reassessment order would be quashed.

Consequently, the order under section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the (non-

existent) reassessment order would fail. Therefore, the validity of the order

under section 263 of the Act is dependent on the fate of the reassessment order

to be decided in appeal there against. To put it differently, the disposal of the

appeal against the reassessment order by the CIT(A) on the grounds raised

therein had material and significant bearing on the assumption of jurisdiction

under section 263 of the Act, which is subject of challenge before the Tribunal

(ITA No. 1462/Del/2016). In that view of the matter, the CIT(A) ought to have

disposed off the appeal of the assessee on merits much less dismiss the same as

infructuous.

8 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

the subject matter of consideration in the revisionary proceedings under section

263 of the Act, since the Commissioner proceeded on the premise that the

reassessment order was valid in law. For that reason, the same could not and

was not set aside by the CIT for fresh consideration. He submitted that the issue

regarding quantum of deduction under section 80IB is secondary to the

fundamental issue of legality/ validity of the impugned reassessment order. He

reiterated that if the reassessment order is set aside as null and void being

beyond jurisdiction, there would not be any scope of sustainability of

subsequent revisionary order under section 263 of the Act. The first step,

therefore, would be to examine the validity/ legality of the reassessment order

passed by the assessing officer. It will, thus, be appreciated that the

jurisdictional legal issue challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings

arise out of the impugned reassessment order and could have and had to be

examined by the CIT(A). Being so, it was of paramount importance to first

examine the issue of legality of the reassessment order in the appeal by the

CIT(A).

CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal as infructuous would render the appellant

remediless insofar as the issue of validity of reassessment proceedings under

9 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

section 147 of the Act is concerned. In the appeal against order passed by CIT

under section 263, the appellate authorities would not, it is submitted, consider

the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer in passing the impugned

reassessment order under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee would

be rendered remediless qua the jurisdictional issue raised in the present appeal

against the reassessment order, if the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

notional basis while computing deduction allowable under section 80IB in

respect of MBF unit has neither been considered nor set aside by the CIT in

revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. Being so, the said issue

also requires adjudication in the present appellate proceedings against the

reassessment order dated 4.3.2013 and would neither arise in appeal filed

against order under section 263 (before ITAT) nor in appeal against

consequential order under section 143(3)/263 of the Act. He submitted that any

cause of action is rendered infructuous if the very cause, leading to the

grievance, against which legal remedy is pursued, itself ceases to operate/ exist.

The legal remedy (appeal) cannot be regarded as infructuous when the cause

and the fundamental grievance of the assessee/ petitioner/ litigant continues to

survive. Referring to various decisions he submitted that it is quite fundamental

that no one can be rendered remediless. The fundamental of law is captured in

10 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

the maxim' Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium' which means for every wrong, law provides

a remedy. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Canon Steels (P) Limited V. Commissioner of Customs: (2007) 14 SCC 464, he

submitted that the Apex Court in the context of territorial jurisdiction of Court,

observed, "But no person should be left without remedy ..... ".

the Act is for the benefit of the assessee. So long as the grievance of the

appellant continues to subsist, the appeal cannot be regarded and, or dismissed

as infructuous, so as to render the appellant remediless. Referring to the

following decisions, he submitted that in the context of section 246/246A/249 of

the Act, it has been consistently held by the Courts that the right to appeal is a

valuable substantive right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it

cannot be held that the assessee has abandoned or lost such right by any

implication(s) :-

(i) Indian Aluminuin Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 162 ITR 788 (Cal.); (ii) CIT v. Bengal Card Board Industries & Printers (P.) Ltd.: 176 ITR 196. (iii) Nagpur Zilla Krushi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. ITO: 207 ITR 213 (Bom.). (iv) Janardhan Reddy v. The State: AIR 1951 SC 124.

11 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

cannot be taken away/dismissed because of any subsequent act (order under

section 263 in the present case). Right to appeal was vested in the appellant

when proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were initiated. The appeal

was validly filed by the appellant under section 246A of the Act. Being so, the

same could not have been dismissed as infructuous. He submitted that the two

fundamental grievances of the appellant, viz. validity of the reassessment and

legal issue of notional set off of loss, continues to survive and the said issues do

not arise out of/form part of the revisionary proceedings. The appeal filed by the

appellant could not, therefore, have been regarded as infructuous.

of the re-assessment proceedings. Referring to the following decisions, ld.

counsel for the assessee submitted that if the reasons recorded do not specify

any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts

necessary for completion of the assessment, entire re-assessment would be

invalid :-

(a) CIT v. ITW India Ltd.: 377 ITR 195 (P&H). (b) Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT: 269 ITR 182 (P&H). (c) Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT: 270 ITR 290 (P&H). (d) State Bank of Patiala v. CIT: 375 ITR 109 (P&H). (e) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) Ltd. v. ITO: (1987) 168 ITR 296 (P&H). (f) In Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (g) Avtec v. DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del.).

12 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

(h) Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (m) CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.: 171 Taxman 379 (Del.). (n) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 308 ITR 22 (Del.). (o) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (p) Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT : WP(C) 12324/2015 (Del) dated 24.7.2017.

only required to state the primary facts. Legal inferences, if any, has to be

drawn by the Assessing Officer. If true and full disclosure of facts made,

reassessment is held to be invalid :-

(a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO: 41 ITR 191 (SC). (b) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (c) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (d) CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF): 306 ITR 173 (Del.). (e) CIT v. Motor & General Finance Ltd.: 184 Taxman 465 (Del.). (f) CIT v. ITW India Ltd.: 377 ITR 195 (P&H). (g) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) Ltd. v. ITO: (1987) 168 ITR 296 (P&H). (h) State Bank of Patiala v. CIT: 375 ITR 109 (P&H). (i) Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (j) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (k) EL Forge Ltd. vs. DCIT: 224 Taxman 222 (Mad.). (l) Doshi Housing Ltd. v. ACIT: 211 Taxman 46 (Mad.). (m) RPG Transmissions Ltd. v. CIT: 359 ITR 673 (Mad.). (n) CIT v. A.R. Enterprises: 255 ITR 121 (Raj.).

13 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

(o) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (p) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT : 287 ITR 494 (Bom.). (q) Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT: 312 ITR 70 (Guj.).

the basis of change of opinion. Referring to para 2.7 to 2.8 of the original

assessment order, he submitted that there was categorical expression of opinion

by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment that notional losses are not

required to be set off for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80IB of the

I.T. Act. Therefore, the present re-assessment proceedings are clearly initiated

on mere change of opinion and, therefore, patently without jurisdiction, illegal

and bad in law. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the

reassessment proceedings on the basis of change of opinion are not permissible.

Third proviso to section 147 restrict assessing officer to reassess issues which

have already been subject matter of appeal, reference or revision before higher

authority. He submitted that in present case, third proviso is squarely applicable

in respect of deduction under section 801A/80M since

(a) Claim of deduction under section 80IA and consequential computation

under section 801B was extensively examined/ considered and varied

in original assessment order;

14 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

(b) Appeal against aforesaid assessment order was disposed by CIT(A)

vide order dated 11.11.2008.

(c) Department's appeal on issue of deduction under section 80lA/80M

was disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 6.3.2014.

issued upto 6 years from end of relevant assessment year 2005-06, which

expired on 31.03.2012. Though notice in present case was issued on 24.03.2012,

but reasons and sanction accorded under section 151 were not provided and

accordingly, notice was not complete/ valid. He submitted that the reasons were

admittedly communicated to the appellant much after the completion of

reassessment proceedings. Sanction has in fact not been provided till date. He

accordingly submitted that under the aforementioned facts, it cannot be held that

notice was issued within period of 6 years, since notice was not complete and

was not accompanied by reasons and the satisfaction note and consequently,

impugned reopening is barred by limitation of 6 year prescribed in section 149.

For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions :-

(i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.), (ii) Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO: ITA No.4806/D/2010 (Del Trib.).

Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO: 259 ITR 19 (SC), the ld. counsel for the

15 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

assessee submitted that the same is sacrosanct and binding on the assessee and

the Revenue. He submitted that as per the said decision (a) Pursuant to notice

under section 148 of the Act, assessee is bound to file return in response thereto,

(b) Assessee may seek copy of reasons recorded by the assessing officer for

reopening the completed assessment, (c) Assessing officer is bound to provide

reasons recorded for reopening, (d) The assessee pursuant to the receipt of

reasons is entitled to file legal objections challenging the validity of reopening,

(e) On receipt of legal objections, the assessing officer is bound to pass a

separate speaking order disposing the legal objections, after hearing the assessee

thereon, (f) If the legal objections are rejected, the order disposing the legal

objections must be passed and served on the assessee reasonably in advance of

the reassessment order. He submitted that violation of aforesaid procedure/

legal position would render reassessment order illegal and bad in law.

provided or communicated for which it constituted a jurisdictional error and,

therefore, the impugned proceedings should be rendered as null and void. It

was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for reopening of

the assessment. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics reported

in 379 ITR 456. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

16 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

the case of PCIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors reported in 398 ITR 13, he

submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where

the assessee was not given copy of reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 by the

Assessing Officer, whole assessment proceedings and resultant order of

assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the I.T. Act was to be quashed.

filed by the assessee was not disposed of by passing a separate speaking order

and, therefore, the reassessment order is illegal and bad in law. Referring to

page 226 of the Paper Book, he submitted that the Assessing Officer in the

remand report dated 19.07.2016 had admitted that no separate order, much less

speaking, dealing with preliminary objections to initiation of impugned

reassessment proceedings raised by the assessee was passed by the then

Assessing Officer. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of GKN Draveshaft (supra) and various other decisions, he submitted

that the action of the Assessing Officer in not disposing of objection raised by

the assessee by way of separate speaking order makes the reassessment

proceedings illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

that MBF Unit was set up as a separate and independent industrial undertaking

/unit and is engaged in manufacture of liquid/pig iron. The said unit commenced

17 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

production on 12th April, 2002 falling in the previous year relevant to the

assessment year 2003-04.

MBF Unit was eligible for deduction under section 80IB(5)(ii) of the Act since

the said unit suffered losses. no deduction was claimed in the return of income.

The said losses were completely set off by appellant with the taxable income for

the respective assessment years and accordingly, no loss was left to be carried

forward to future assessment years, including the relevant assessment year. The

quantum of losses for the said assessment years were as under:

Assessment Year Amount (Rs.)

2003-04 (-) 6,71,95,099

2004-05 (-) 2,12,00,840

Total (-) 8,83,95,939/-

officer, without appreciating the facts of the case and correct position in law,

held that the aforesaid losses pertaining to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-

05 were required to be set off with profits of relevant assessment year in respect

of MBF Unit and accordingly, reduced the amount of deduction claimed by

appellant under section 80lB of the Act in respect of said unit by the aggregate

amount of losses of such preceding assessment years. He submitted that the

18 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

aforesaid action of the assessing officer in reducing the amount of deduction

claimed by appellant under section 801B of the Act in respect of MBF Unit by

the aggregate amount of losses of such unit for assessment years 2003-04 and

2004-05, in view of the facts of the case and correct position in law, is incorrect,

illegal and unsustainable.

submitted that the said sub-section provides that the eligible unit claiming

deduction under section 80-lA of the Act would be treated as a separate source

of income and deduction has to be allowed only vis-a-vis profits derived from

the eligible unit unaffected by the profits/losses of other units owned by the

assessee. The assessing officer, in the present case has grossly misconstrued the

application of the aforesaid provisions of sub-section (5) of section 80lA of the

Act. The aforesaid provisions do not provide that the losses/ depreciation of the

eligible unit relating to any earlier assessment year(s) which are already

absorbed against profits of other units/ other incomes in the respective year(s)

should once again be notionally brought forward and adjusted against the profits

of the current assessment year for computing deduction allowable under section

80-IA/18 of the Act. He submitted that the effect of the deeming fiction enabled

in the provisions of section 80lA(5) of the Act are that it seeks to set at rest long

standing controversy, i.e., whether for computing deduction/losses incurred in

19 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

one eligible unit is required to be set-off against the profits of the other eligible

undertaking or not.

Carborundum Universal Limited vs. JCIT reported in 371 ITR 275, he

submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has dealt with one of the question of law

as under:

"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses incurred by the industrial undertaking claiming deduction under Section 801, which has been already set off against the profits of the other industrial undertaking should be notionally carried forward and set off against profit generated by the industrial undertaking during the relevant assessment year for determining the deduction under Section 80I?"

substance, similar to provisions of section 80IA(5) as is applicable to section

80IB of the Act, held that losses for past assessment years which were fully set

off against the total income of those assessment years could not be notionally

carried forward and set off against income of the current year.

Assessing Officer, in the impugned assessment, has given no direction to levy

any interest under the Act. However, in the computation of income, annexed

with the assessment order, the interest had been charged under section 234D and

also interest under section 244A of the Act has been withdrawn, which is

untenable in law. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he submitted imposition

20 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

of interest under section 234B of the Act is erroneous since the said section is

not applicable to reassessment, as elaborated hereunder :-

“The provisions of the section 234B, it is submitted, applies to "regular assessment" and the only case in which interest on excess refund may be charged pursuant to order under Section 147 is where such "assessment is framed for the first time".

Accordingly, for that reason, too. no interest was leviable under Section 234B of

the Act.

CIT v. Rameo Industries Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1343 of 2009, wherein, on

similar fact, the High Court held that interest under section 234B of the Act can

be levied only when the assessee is granted refund under section 143( I) of the

Act and the same is payable back to the Revenue on completion of assessment

under section 143(3) of the Act. The said section 234D was held not applicable

where reassessment is completed under section 147 of the Act. He also relied

on the following decisions :-

(i) ACIT v. Oracle India (P) Ltd.: I.T.A. No. 4639 and 4640/Del/2007 (Del Trib.). (ii) MMTC Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.4321/Del/2009 (Del.). (iii) ACIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. in ITA No.2246/Mum/2009 (Mum). (iv) Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. vs ACIT: 142 TTJ 252 (Vishakapatnarn). (v) K. Anji Reddy vs. DCIT: 59 SOT 92 (Hyderabad)

interest under section 234B of the Act and withdrawal of interest under section

21 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

244A in the demand notice and, therefore, interest so levied deserves to be

deleted.

He submitted that against the issue of notice u/s 148 only writ lies before the

Hon'ble High Court/Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appeals before CIT(A) lie only

against the orders mentioned in section 246(1) i.e. orders passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. But that order is not the order dated 04.03.2018 as

that order does not exist and shall not exit till the order u/s 263 is quashed.

Therefore, the appealable order is that u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 263 and the

original order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 does not exist as on date. He submitted that

after order u/s 263 only notice u/s 148 survived and not the order. Therefore,

deciding this appeal amounts to reviewing the order of Hon'ble High Court in

writ jurisdiction dated 24.02.2016 in CWP 10702 of 2015 dismissing the writ of

assessee against the order u/s 263. If the order u/s 263 is upheld by the Tribunal

in ITA No.1462/Del/2016 then validity of notice u/s 148 can be examined in

appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act. He

submitted that if the Tribunal quashes the order u/s 263 in ITA

No.1462/Del/2016 then this appeal may go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) as

he has not decided the issue on merits. He submitted that vide order dated

30.03.2016 in SA No.198/Del/2016, para 8.8 of the Assessing Officer was

22 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

allowed to pass assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act. He

accordingly submitted that ITA No.1462/Del/2016 filed by the assessee against

the order passed u/s 263 may be decided first and appeal No.6698/Del/2016

would not survive unless ITA No.1462/Del/2016 is decided against the

Revenue. So far as the arguments on merit of the other grounds are concerned,

he heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A).

the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed

on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited

before us. We find the assessee in the instant case filed the original return of

income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.146,94,07,460/- which was

revised on 31.03.2007 declaring income of Rs.92,06,88,890/-. In the said return

of income, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.254.83 crores in respect of

the following items :-

a) Deduction u/s 80IA in respect of the various captive power plants.

b) Deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Mini Blast Furnace (MBF) unit.

c) Deduction u/s 80IB in respect of others independent/ separate

eligible units/ undertakings.

23 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.212,42,01,723/-. We find the

Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 147/148 of the

I.T. Act on 23.03.2012 and, thereafter, passed the order u/s 143(3)/147 on

04.03.2013 determining the total income at Rs.156,02,61,476/-. We find the

assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and during the pendency of such

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) revisionary proceedings u/s 263 were initiated by

the ld. CIT by issuance of show-cause notice dated 21.10.2013. We find the ld.

CIT vide order dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act had set-aside the

reassessment order on the limited issue of examination of deduction u/s

80IA/80IB of the I.T. Act. We find the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) had

challenged the validity of reassessment order dated 04.03.2016 on jurisdictional

ground and disallowance of deduction on merits. However, we find ld. CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee stating that the appeal filed by the

assessee becomes infructuous as addition/disallowance made in the

reassessment order dated 04.03.2016 was set-aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the

I.T. Act.

reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 passed u/s 143(3)/147 was not set-aside by

the ld. CIT in toto. Therefore, when the ld. CIT in exercising of revisionary

24 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

power u/s 263 sets aside the assessment, the assessment is not completely

effaced and only the issue set-aside by the ld. CIT in the order passed u/s 263

are to be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer. It is also his submission that the

ld. CIT while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 assumed the reassessment order

dated 04.03.2013 was validly passed. Therefore, when the issue of validity or

legality of proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act was challenged before the ld.

CIT(A) and if the assessee succeeds in demonstrating that the jurisdiction u/s

147 was not validly assumed, then the reassessment order would have to be

quashed and consequently, the order u/s 263 seeking to revise the reassessment

order would fail.

33.1 We find merit in the above arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee.

A perusal of the order of ld. CIT passed u/s 263 shows that the ld. CIT by

invoking powers conferred on him u/s 263 has set-aside the reassessment order

on the limited issue of examination of deduction u/s 80IA/80IB. In other words,

the entire order has not been set-aside and there is no specific comment by the

ld. CIT in his order regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings

initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, ld.

CIT(A), in our opinion, should not have dismissed the appeal holding the same

to be infructuous. He was duty bound and obliged to decide the issue of validity

of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer which was

25 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

challenged before him. If the assessee succeeds on this legal ground before the

ld. CIT(A) then the 263 order passed by the ld. CIT would fail. Under these

factual circumstances, the arguments by ld. DR, in our opinion, are without any

merit and has to be rejected. Since the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has not

decided the validity of the reassessment proceedings challenged before him and

had dismissed the appeal as infructuous because of the revisionary powers

exercised by the ld. CIT u/s 263, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the

issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the legal ground

raised before him challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. We

again reiterate that since ld. CIT in the order passed u/s 263 had not set-aside

the reassessment proceedings and had set-aside the order for limited purpose of

examining the deduction u/s 80IA/80IB of the I.T. Act, therefore, ld. CIT(A)

was duty bound to decide the validity of the legal ground raised before him.

direction to adjudicate the legal ground raised before him challenging the

validity of the reassessment proceedings. Since we are restoring the issue to the

file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the legal ground, therefore, we are not

deciding the other grounds raised before us by ld. counsel for the assessee. The

submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that all the grounds should be

decided here and need not be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to reduce the

26 ITA No.6698/Del/2016

multiplicity of the proceedings is not accepted because ld. CIT(A) had not at all

discussed the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act

by the Assessing Officer and has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the

assessee as infructuous. In the light of our above discussion, the matter is

restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the validity of

reassessment proceedings. Needless to say, he shall give due opportunity of

being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct

accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for

statistical purposes.

purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 08th June, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08-06-2018. Sujeet Copy of order to: - 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT 4) The CIT(A) 5) The DR, I.T.A.T., New Delhi By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, New Delhi