Rallis India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9833 Bom

                                                 1                         wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc


Sbw

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 2011


      Rallis India Ltd.,
      a company incorporated under the
      provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
      having its registered office at
      156/157, Nariman Bhavan,
      15th Floor, 227 Nariman Point,
      Mumbai-400 021.                                               ..Petitioner
                Versus
      1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
         Range 3(3), Mumbai, having his
         office at Room no.609, 6th floor,
         Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road,
          Mumbai-400 020.
      2) Commissioner of Income Tax, City 3
          having his office at Aayakar Bhavan,
          M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020.
      3) Union of India, through the Secretary,
           Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
           North Block, New Delhi-110 001.                  ..Respondents
                                           ...........
      Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Counsel, a/w Jitendra Jain i/b. Atul K. Jasani for the
      Petitioner.
      Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Respondent.
                                           ...........


                                               CORAM: A. S. OKA &
                                                          A. K. MENON, JJ.

                                               2                        wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc




                                    RESERVED ON     : 24TH NOVEMBER,2017
                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 20TH DECEMBER, 2017


JUDGMENT(PER A. K.MENON, J.):-

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the

petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari questioning the validity of notice dated 24 th

March, 2010 issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and an order dated 24 th December, 2010 rejecting

objections in respect of the Assessment Year 2005-06.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:-

The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading

and marketing of pesticides had filed its return of income on 24 th October,

2005 declaring the income of Rs.8.76 crores accompanied by detailed working

as also a report of a Chartered Accountant under Section 115JB of the Act. On

10th December 2007 an Order U/s 143(3) came to be passed determining total

income at Rs.8,87,36,110/- under section 115JB. The respondent no.1-Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 10 th December, 2007

assessing income under Section 115JB at Rs.8.87 crores. The Assessing Officer

made certain additions under the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an

appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging disallowance.

3 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

The appeal came to be disposed of on 15 th October, 2010. The appeal was

partly allowed.

3. In the meantime, on 6th February, 2008, respondent no.1 issued

notice under Section 148 to reassess the income in respect of the Assessment

Year 2005-06. The reasons for reopening were furnished on 1 st December,

2008 stating that neither assessee nor the AO have considered provisions for

doubtful debts and diminution in value of investments and which allegedly

resulted in escapement of income. On 29th December, 2008 the respondent

no.1 passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 enhancing

the book profit to Rs.15.12 crores, the reason being that the additions on

account of provision for diminution in the value of an asset and provision for

doubtful debts.

4. The petitioner challenged the order of reassessment before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal on merits

following the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s HCL Comnet

Systems & Services Ltd. 305 ITR 409 and Apollo Tyres v/s CIT (255ITR 273)

holding that the AO has to accept the authenticity of accounts maintained

under the Companies Act and as certified by auditors.

5. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the

4 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenged the same before the

Tribunal. The assessee also filed a Cross Appeal on the ground that the AO had

erred in resorting to reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal allowed the

cross appeal, held that the order dated 29 th December 2008 in reassessment

proceedings was bad in law and dismissed the appeal by the revenue as being

infructuous.

6. The Revenue challenged the said order of the Tribunal in this

Court by filing Income Tax Appeal (L)No.2160 of 2010. Pending the said

appeal, on 25th March, 2010 the petitioner once again received a notice under

Section 148 of the Act dated 24 th March, 2010 in respect of the Assessment

Year 2005-06 seeking to reopen/reassess the completed scrutiny and

reassessment proceedings. On 30th March, 2010 and on 19th April, 2010 the

petitioner requested for the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and

also requested that the original return filed on 24 th October, 2005 be treated as

return filed in compliance with notice under Section 147. The reasons were

furnished on 22nd April, 2010 stating that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation

against book profit or Assessment Year 2005-06 is not in order since it had

been set off against the book profit for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and

hence, there was no amount of unabsorbed depreciation available for set off in

Assessment Year 2005-06.

5 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

7. Objections were filed on 14 th July, 2010. The petitioner informed the

respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax of the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19

and requested the Assessing Officer to dispose of the objections before

proceeding with the assessment. In terms of the said decision, the petitioner

clarified what is set off was unabsorbed business loss on the books amounting

to Rs.17.91 crores. On 30 th July, 2010 and on 4th August, 2010, the respondent

no.1 issued a notice under Section 142(1) for commencing reassessment

proceedings. On 12th August, 2010, the petitioner challenged jurisdiction of

respondent no.1 inviting attention to the case of GKN Driveshafts (supra) to

dispose of the objections before proceeding with the reassessment proceeding.

On 1st October, 2010, the respondent no.1 once again issued a letter calling

upon the petitioner to make submissions on merits of the case and show cause

by 11th October, 2010 as to why the excess loss set off should not be rejected.

On 11th October, 2010 the petitioner reiterated its objections and submitted

that by virtue of the decision of GKN Driveshafts (supra), the procedure set out

for disposal of objection must be followed before proceeding with the

assessment.

8. Meanwhile, the letter was sent on 18 th November, 2010 calling upon the

revenue to decide the objections. However, despite this on 20 th November, 2010

the petitioner received an Assessment Order in contravention of the directions

6 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

of the Supreme Court and this Court. The order was passed under Section

143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act along with notice of demand raising a

demand of Rs.2.76 crores to be paid within 30 days. This order came to be

challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (L)No.2766 of 2010. On 13 th

December, 2010 this Court set aside the reassessment order and directed the

respondent no.1 to dispose of the objections in accordance with law. By an

order dated 24th December 2010, objections came to be rejected but without

granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9. The objections raised were rejected primarily on the ground that there is

no change of opinion and the respondent had reason to believe that income has

escaped assessment. On 31st December, 2010, the petitioner filed

supplementary objections reiterating the decisions of the Supreme Court and

this Court. The petitioner has impugned the notice dated 24 th March, 2010 and

the order rejecting objections of reassessment dated 24 th December, 2010 as

being contrary to law.

10. In an affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents by one Pankaj

Singhania, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, it is contended that the

challenge in this petition is uncalled for and not justified. He has referred to

chronology of events in paragraph 4 and contended that prior to notice under

Section 148 then Assessment Officer has recorded reasons for reopening of the

7 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

assessment as income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and there was

reason to believe so. According to the deponent, there is a clear link between the

formation of an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped

assessment and the reasons recorded based on the material available on record.

He contends that there is a prima facie mistake apparent on the record since the

petitioner was not entitled to fetch double benefit on account of unabsorbed

depreciation, and therefore, reopening of the assessment was the only solution.

According to the Assessing Officer, a false claim had been made to set off

unabsorbed depreciation against the book profits of Assessment Year 2005-06

which have already been set off in 2004-05. The contention that there is a

change of opinion has been denied.

11. Mr. Pardiwala, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the

petitioner pointed out that the impugned orders were passed in the teeth of

settled law. He submitted that the impugned orders were illegal and were liable

to quashed and set aside. No personal hearing was granted by the respondent

no.1 in order to enable the petitioner to make submissions on the validity of the

reassessment proceedings. This Court had vide an order dated 13 th December,

2010 directed the respondent no.1 to decide the objections in accordance with

law and the personal hearing was extremely necessary and ought to have been

granted. Mr. Pardiwala further submitted that the petitioner had already filed a

report of a qualified Chartered Accountant in the requisite form certifying that

8 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

the book profit has been computed in accordance with the provisions of Section

115JB and the working of book profit was also enclosed and even otherwise the

issue of working of book profit had already been provided twice before the

impugned order was issued as set out above.

12. Mr. Pinto, on behalf of respondents asserted correctness of the

impugned order dated 24th October, 2010 for the reasons set out above.

Mr.Pinto submitted that the record itself shows that there is an escapement of

income assessment to the extent of Rs.17,91,09,548/- which needs to be

brought to tax. It is contended that the assessment has been rightly reopened

within a period of 4 years of aforesaid. He therefore submitted that the petition

is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having heard counsel for the parties today, we find that after this writ

petition was filed, vide ad-interim order dated 24 th January, 2011 the operation

of the impugned notice dated 24 th March, 2010 and the order rejecting the

objections dated 24th December, 2010 came to be stayed. The respondents were

restrained from taking any steps in the matter. Interim relief has continued to

operate till disposal of the petition.

14. The decision of this Court in the case of the assessee for the Assessment

Year 2004-05 [see (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom)] holds that a mere change of

9 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

opinion would not justify the Assessing Officer in seeking a recourse to the

powers under Sections 147 and 148 unless there is tangible material before the

Assessing Officer to prove that income chargeable to tax has escaped

assessment. This Court further held, while allowing the petition, during the

course of the assessment proceedings, that the Assessing Officer brought his

mind to bear upon the questions involved and there was absence of tangible

material on the basis of which assessment could have been reopened.

15. In the present case the very same assessment year was under

consideration whereas this Court has already taken a view in the aforesaid

assessee's case. There was no warrant for issue of further notice. It is evident

that this has occasioned only as a change of opinion and an afterthought and in

any event, the reopening sought to be effected is beyond the period of 4 years.

In CIT v/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) , it has

been held by the Supreme Court that even within the period of 4 years there

has to be tangible material on the basis of which assessment can be reopened.

16. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment in the case of the assessee itself reveals

that it pertains to Assessment Year 2004-05 and in view of the decision of this

Court in the case of the assessee for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2004-05,

Income Tax Appeal (L)no.2160 of 2010 came to be dismissed. What is material

to note is that the affidavit in reply admits of the fact that the reasons for

10 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

reopening were based on the material available on record (emphasis

supplied). Even otherwise, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

objections raised by the appellant were on two grounds viz. that the Assessing

Officer could not have had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had

escaped assessment and secondly that the assessment had to be reopened only

on account of change of opinion. While dealing with the said two, the

respondent concluded in paragraph 12 and 13 of the impugned order that it is

upon verification of the case records (emphasis supplied) that the claim for

unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.17,91,09,548/- was found to have been

(allegedly) wrongly claimed and that the reasons recorded are not based on any

suspicion but on a solid foundation of law and the facts and placed reliance on

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock

Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 in support of the rejection of

objections.

17. In our view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

decision [(2010) 323 ITR 54 Bom.] of our High Court in the case of very

assessee for the same assessment year, there is no justification for reopening the

assessment. Lastly we express our displeasure at the conduct of the officer of

revenue in issuing a fresh notice despite a binding decision in the case of the

assessee and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The revenue must reign

in their officers in matters which have attained finality failing which costs

11 wp-328.11(5.12.17).doc

thrown away may have to be imposed. The impugned order, therefore, cannot

be sustained. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:-

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(ii) Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(iii) No order as to costs.

         (A. K. MENON, J.)                             (A. S. OKA, J.)




Wadhwa