TATA MARCOPOLO MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

1. Reassessment proceedings u/s.147: 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer of invoking the provision of section 147 of the Act. Further, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the 2 ITA.No.3987/MUM/2016 (A.Y:2008-09) M/s. Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited fact that the proceedings initiated by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Act and consequently order passed by him under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same was merely based on change of opinion on same set of facts and material already on record and consequently the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings for the captioned year without appreciating the fact that the same was based on same set of information/ documents already available with the learned AO while assessing the Income under original assessment proceedings and in the absence of any fresh/ new material the re- assessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law. 1.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said proceeding was based on the audit query raised by the audit department of the Income-tax and hence the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. 1.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of the re-assessment proceedings by holding that the appellant has misrepresented the facts by claiming many expenses under the head intangible assets without appreciating the fact that the information/ documents towards the claim of depreciation @ 25% on Product Development cost was already available to the learned AO during original assessment proceedings. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no such misrepresentation of facts made by the appellant; as this has already been confirmed by him while adjudicating the case on merits.

Interest under section 244A: 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not directing the learned AO for granting interest on excess taxes paid under section 244A of the Act. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that interest u/s 244A of the Act is applicable on refunds of any amount due to the assesse under the Act which also includes refunds of tax paid in the form of TDS.”

At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 is not pressed and may be disposed off accordingly.

Coming to Ground No.2, which is in regard to Interest u/s. 244A of the Act, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, interest

Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On hearing both the parties, we are of the view that this issue has to be examined by the Assessing Officer in view of the submissions of the assessee that no interest is granted u/s. 244A on the refund of TDS in the light of various case laws on the issue. Therefore, Assessing Officer is directed to consider the claim of the assessee and pass orders in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.