Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Asst. Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 1307/Mum/2008
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/02/2010
Related Assessment Year : 1999- 2000
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

CIT vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (Bombay High Court)-In both the cases, the assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2347 OF 2010

and  INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1263 OF 2011

The Commissioner of Income Tax ­ 17, Mumbai
Versus

M/s. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (Regd.)

ORDER
DATE : 1st July, 2011.

P.C.:

1. In both these appeals, the question raised by the Revenue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year.
2. In both the cases, the assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC introduced by  the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment.

3. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.)                        (J.P. Devadhar, J.)

—————————————————

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH ‘A’, MUMBAI.
Before Shri R.K. Gupta, J.M. and Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M.

I.T.A. No. 1307/Mum/2008
Assessment Year : 1999-2000.

Asst. Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports)

O R D E R

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M.

This is an appeal! filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the CIT (Appeal!s)-XXVII, Mumbai dated 19-11-2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000 on the following ground :

“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal!s) erred in ho!ding that re-assessment proceedings initiated by the A.O. beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year in question is bad in !aw and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.”

2. We have heard Mr. Mahua Sarkar, learned DR and Mr. Vijay Mehta, learned counse! for the assessee.
3. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the reopening of the case beyond the period of 4 years is bad in law, as the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21-03-2002 and there is no allegation whatsoever that the assessee has failed to disclose the material facts necessary for making the assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening read as follows :

“ The AO has recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000.

“(a) It is seen that the assessee has received interest of Rs.13,14,824. However, while claiming deduction u/s 80HHC, the assessee has not deducted 90% of the interest from the profits of the business thereby resulting in excess deduction of Rs. 10,83,232 being allowed to the assessee with a tax effect of Rs.3,79,131.

(b) As per the recent amendments in the Income tax Act in respect of 80HHC deduction, I have reason to believe that the assessee has incorrectly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on the DEPB credits resulting in under assessment of income.”

4. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332 held as follows :

“ Held, that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed. ”

Respectfully applying the same to the facts of the case, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherein at page 4 it is held as follows :

“ From this fact it cannot be said that the income has escaped assessment due to failure of the appellant to disclose material facts necessary for making assessments. Keeping in view the judicial decisions cited by the appellant and also following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Mum) re-assessment proceeding initiated by the A.O. beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year in question is bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.”

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of February, 2010.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
December 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031