Case Law Details
Coca-Cola India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Revenue relied upon a Bombay HC judgment in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. ACIT to submit that even if the reason for reopening does not specifically state that there was any failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, it will not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. We would certainly agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar but as held in Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Supra), this is subject to the rider that there must be cogent and clear indication in the reasons supplied, that in fact there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment. If the factum of failure to disclose can be culled down from the reasons in support of the notice seeking to reopen assessment, that will certainly not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The Court held “However, if from the reasons, no case of failure to disclose is made out, then certainly the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act”.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Petitioner is impugning notice dated 28/3/2005 received by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 1998-1999 and the consequential order dated 10/11/2005 received by respondent No.1 under section 143(2) of the Act and the order dated 28/2/2006.
2. Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of non-alcoholic beverage bases and beverages made out of such bases. With a view to reorganize its business so as to achieve certain commercial advantages, petitioner filed in this Court an application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 whereby it had sought sanction for the transfer of its bottling manufacturing undertaking in Pune and Goa to a company Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL). HCCBPL also filed an application in Delhi High Court for the same purpose. On 3/5/1999 the scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by Bombay High Court and on 13/8/1999 Delhi High Court also sanctioned the scheme of arrangement filed in that Court by HCCBPL.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
