Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-2 Vs. M/s. Chl Limited
December, 21st 2017
$~25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2017
+       ITA 1060/2017 & CM No. 42859-60/2017
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2                        ..... Appellant
                           versus

M/S. CHL LIMITED                                           ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant(s)       :        Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel
.
For the Respondent(s)      :        None.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA


S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

1.      The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income
Tax Tribunal (ITAT) which has set aside the assessment framed. It
contends that the reasoning with respect to untenability of re-
assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01, in the facts of this
case, was not justified.

2.      The assessee had filed its returns for the AY 2000-01 claiming
certain income to be part of its returns had arisen under Section
80HHb. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3).






ITA 1060/2017                                                        Page 1 of 4
Subsequently, much later i.e. on 21.03.2007, the Revenue exercised
its powers under Section 147/148, recorded the following reasons:-
        "10. As regards assessment year 2000-01, Ld. Counsel
        submitted that for assessment year under consideration,
        reopening has been initiated beyond 4 years and the
        assessing officer has also alleged that assessee has failed
        to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for
        assessment. The reasons recorded have been placed at
        page 33 of paper book which reads as under:

        The assessment in the case of M/s CHL Ltd., for the A. Y.
        2000-01 was completed in March, 2003 determining the
        income at Rs. 1,04,56,040/-. On perusal of the records it
        is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s
        80HHD amounting to Rs. 2191238/- which was allowed
        at the time of assessment completed u/s 143(3). It is seen
        that in the profit of the business commutated for the
        purpose of deduction u/s 80HHD, the interest income of
        Rs.6,54,23,22/- and license fee of Rs. 5,69,49,782/- were
        not reduced, which were required as per the provision of
        Section 80HHD as these receipts had direct nexus with
        business activities of the assessee i.e. running of the
        Hotel. After reducing the above mentioned receipts, the
        profits of the business of the assessee for the computation
        of deduction u/s 80HHD comes to negative finger and
        hence no deduction u/s 80HHD can be allowed to the
        assessee.

        The assessee at the time of filing the return of income
        during the assessment proceedings failed to disclosed
        fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion
        of the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. I,
        therefore, have reasons to believe that this amount of
        Rs.21,91,238/- represents income of the assessee
        chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the
        assessment year 2000-01."







ITA 1060/2017                                                     Page 2 of 4
3.      The additions made by the Assessing Officer were appealed
against by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions holding
that the amounts brought to tax could not have been legitimately
claimed as deduction under Section 80HHb. Upon further appeal, the
ITAT allowed the assessee's contentions. The ITAT has reasoned that
the AO's opinion, with respect to assessee's failure with respect to all
material facts revealed, amounted to change of the opinion and that in
the absence of any fresh material; the circumstances that for the
previous assessment year (i.e. AY 1998-99) the additions made by the
AO were accepted, could not stand. The ITAT's reasoning is as
follows: -
        "In the present case, as noted above, Assessing Officer
        was having before him all material facts that were
        necessary for the purposes of completing original
        assessment. The Assessing Officer's recording that the
        assessee has failed to disclose all material facts
        necessary for completion of assessment without pointing
        out as to what was the material that was not disclosed. It
        is a bland statement which remains unsustainable. The
        reassessment was not passed on only fresh material. The
        material on record was only examined and used for
        recording reasons for reopening. The reopening was
        merely a change of opinion on the same set of facts and
        material. No fresh material came in to the possession of
        the Assessing Officer warranting reopening. Hence the
        reopening is bad in law. We, therefore, set aside and
        quash the notice u/s 148 and assessment order for A.Y.
        2000-01. We, therefore, do not find any necessity to dwell
        upon the merits of the case.

        Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed
        for A. Y 2000-01."

ITA 1060/2017                                                   Page 3 of 4
4.      This Court is of the opinion that the conclusion recorded by the
ITAT does not call any interference. The regular assessment was
completed, in this case, on 31.03.2003. The regular assessment for
AY 1998-99 was completed on 27.03.2001. In these circumstances,
the assessee could not be faulted for having accepted the additions
made for the previous assessment year (AY 1998-99); though later,
given that the returns were filed on 29.11.2000 for the assessment
year (AY 2000-01) in the present case.

5.      No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.



                                                S. RAVINDRA BHAT
                                                       (JUDGE)



                                              SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                                                      (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 28, 2017
`rs'




ITA 1060/2017                                                    Page 4 of 4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting