Godrej Consumer Products Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 384 Bom

                                                           1/2                      910-WP-88-2020.doc
         Digitally
         signed by
         PURTI
PURTI    PRASAD
PRASAD
PARAB
         PARAB
         Date:
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         2022.01.13
         11:59:52                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         +0530



                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2020

                Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.                                ....Petitioner
                              V/s.
                Assistant Commissioner of Income
                Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.                       ...Respondents
                                                      ----
                Mr. Jitendra Jain i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Petitioner.
                Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
                                                      ----
                                                         CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
                                                                     N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2022

P.C. :

1. Petitioner is impugning the notice dated 30th March, 2019

issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the

Assessment Year 2012-13 and the order dated 14 th October, 2019 rejecting

petitioner's objections.

2. The notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued more

than four years after relevant Assessment Year where assessment has been

completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, proviso to Section

147 of the Act shall apply and the onus is on respondents to show that there

was failure on the part of petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts

at the time of assessment. Having considered the reasons recorded for re-

opening, in our view respondent has not made out any case of failure to

disclose on the part of petitioner. The entire basis for re-opening is change

of opinion. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is relying on the same

Purti Parab 2/2 910-WP-88-2020.doc

set of documents based on which the assessment order has already been

passed. According to JAO in Note 30 (Exceptional Items) of the Profit and

Loss Account an amount of Rs.180.95 Crores was credited on account of

License Agreement Termination Compensation. While computing income

for tax purpose petitioner considered this income under the head Long Term

Capital Gains which was taxable at the rate of 20%. But according to JAO

termination of contract was normal incident in business and hence the

receipt was revenue in nature. According to JAO, the entire receipt was

required to be assessed under the head Business Income instead of Capital

Gains. This itself clearly indicates that the proposed assessment is based on

change of opinion which is held in various judgments of various courts

including this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court is not permissible.

3. In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clause - (a) which reads as under :

(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the notice dated 30th March 2019 (Exhibit "A") issued by Respondents under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13; and order rejecting objections (Exhibit "V") dated 14th October, 2019.

4. Petition disposed with no order as to costs.

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                                           (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Purti Parab