ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 1999-00 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata’s order dated 19.09.2017 passed in case No.609/CIT(A)-11/Kol/2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. The Revenue raises following substantive grounds in its instant appeal reads as under:- “1) The Learned. CIT(A) was not correct in law and in facts by quashing the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for the A.Y 1999-2000. 2) The Learned. CIT(A) was not correct in law as well as facts in holding that not new tangible material was available with Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment and therefore the necessary ingredients of section 147 of IT Act, 1961 were not fulfilled for the AY 1999-2000.

A.Y. 1999-00 ACIT, Cir-10(2), Kol. Vs. M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. Page 2 3) The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in law as well as facts in failing to appreciate that where the initial return is processed under section 143(1) of the Act, the AO can form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment by examining the very return and / or the documents accompanying the return.”

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice in the backdrop of Revenue’s above pleadings that the CIT(A) has quashed the impugned re-opening / re-assessment on account of lack of new tangible material as follows:- “Decision: 1. Ground of Appeal NO.1 is against reopening of the case u/s.

147. I this background, notice u/s. 148 has been issued on 27-12-2004 initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and the reasons for initiating reassessment proceeding has been duly provided to the assessee that the use of the term derived from in the relevant position of the at indicates the restricted meaning to cover only the profit and gains directly accruing from the conduct of the business of the undertaking and thus deduction u/s. 80IA had been granted at higher value than actually allowable as per Act. In response to the said notice the assessee vide letter dated 19-01-2005 stated that revised return be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 1.1 In appeal it is submitted that the reopening of the case by the AO by issue of notice u/s. 147 was not justified as there was no fresh material fact s available before the AO and that the same was change of opinion on pat of the Assessing Officer. For the above submissions reliance has been placed on the decision in CIT – vs. – Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR