CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. ACIT

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(29), Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 11B

ITA - 473 / 2010HC Delhi14 January 201132 pages

For Petitioner: ASEEM MOWAR

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. The Court found that the Tribunal justified the AO's action solely based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Orissa Warehouse (supra) as fresh information, without addressing the assessee's primary contention that the issue was already discussed in the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). The Tribunal failed to examine whether the reopening constituted a mere change of opinion or if the aspect was indeed not considered earlier. Therefore, the High Court directed the Tribunal to limit its discussion to this specific aspect: whether the reason given by the AO for reopening was an aspect considered earlier in the original assessment proceedings, making it a case of mere change of opinion, or if it was not considered at all, providing a proper ground for reopening. The Court noted that for other grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice under Section 147/148, it concurred with the views expressed by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Central Warehousing Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking, is challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) common order dated March 31, 2008, which pertains to assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act for income derived from letting out godowns. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessments under Section 147/148, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The AO contended that income from Container Freight Stations (CFS) and Inland Container Depots (ICD) was not eligible for exemption as it was a separate business activity and not part of statutory warehousing functions. The AO also disallowed exemption on interest on fixed deposits, agency commission, and miscellaneous receipts, and disallowed the entire exemption.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 was valid, considering the assessee's contention that it was a case of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the issue was allegedly considered in the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). Assessee's arguments: - The reopening was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had already considered the exemption under Section 10(29) in the original assessment under Section 143(3), and there was no failure on the part of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation was not new information but a change of opinion. - The activities of CFS/ICD are integral to warehousing and have been accepted by the department since 1983-84. The Supreme Court's decision in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation does not negate these claims as CFS/ICD are set up after obtaining necessary permissions and involve warehousing activities. - Reliance was placed on the Allahabad High Court's decision in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, which held that the assessee was an authority within the meaning of Section 10(29) and that income derived from letting godowns for storage, processing, or facilitating marketing of commodities was exempt. Revenue's arguments: - The Supreme Court's decision in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation constituted fresh information, justifying the reopening under Section 147. The ITAT held that for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the Supreme Court's decision was information within the meaning of Section 147(a) even if assessments were made under Section 143(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(29),Section 143(1)(a),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 11B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:13184-DB

More judgments on Section 10(29)

Hry Warehousing Corporation vs Joint Commissioner of It
ITA/526/200520 Nov 2025
ACIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New…
ITA 4334/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99
Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs DCIT, New Delhi
ITA 4190/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…
ITA 2399/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2006-07
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…
ITA 2398/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(29) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →