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

DCIT -8(2) R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai Vs. M/s. Monsanto India Ltd. Ahura Centre, 5th Floor, 96, Mahakali Caves Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093
September, 12th 2014
                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                        MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI
            BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
               AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                              ITA No. 6662/Mum/2011
                              Assessment Year: 2004-05
          DCIT -8(2)                              M/s. Monsanto India Ltd.
          R. No. 216-A, Aayakar                   Ahura Centre, 5th Floor, 96,
          Bhavan M.K. Road                 Vs.    Mahakali Caves Road
          Mumbai                                  Andheri (E),
                                                  Mumbai- 400 093
                                                  PAN:AAACM 2875 L
                (Appellant)                         (Respondent)

                           Assessee by           Shri Kirit Kamdar/Pooja
                                            :
                                                 Battacharjee
                              Revenue by    :    Ms. Amrita Singh
                      Date of hearing  : 25.07.2014
                 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2014
                                      ORDER


PER Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM:


       This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the
Ld.CIT(A) -17, Mumbai dated 12.07.2011 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

2.     In this appeal, the revenue, among other things, has agitated the decision of
the Ld.CIT(A) holding that the reassessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) read with
section 147 of the Income-tax Act is not valid.

3.     The relevant facts are that the assessee, in its original return, had declared a
total income of Rs.39.97 cores after claiming deduction u/s 80IB amounting to
Rs.6,55,18,933/- on its Plant No.II. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) at
Rs.80,93,64,563/- vide order dated 22.12.2006 and the said order the AO made the
adjustments to the total income on account of the following: (i) the income earned
had scrap sales was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB and (ii) the effect of
depreciation thrust on the assessee for the past assessment years. The assessee
filed an appeal against the assessment order before the first appellate authority, i.e.,
                                             2                      ITA No. 6662/Mum/2011
                                                                        M/s. Monsanto India Ltd.
                                                                   Assessment Year: 2004-05






the Ld.CIT(A) raising various grounds of appeal including the eligibility of deduction
u/s 80IB on scrap sales. However, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld that the income on scrap
sales was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. On further appeal before the Tribunal,
the Tribunal allowed certain relief which inter alia includes that scrap sales should be
computed while computing deduction u/s 80IB. The income assessed on giving
effects to the Tribunal order was determined at Rs.44,49,86,025/. Subsequently,
vide notice, dated 23.02.2010 u/s 148, the case was reopened by the AO on the
grounds that (i) depreciation of Rs.15,00,395/- pertaining to common assets claimed
by the assessee in its return is not reduced while computing the deduction u/s 80IB
in the order u/s 143(3) and (ii) common corporate expenses have been allocated by
the assessee at 10% on estimate basis whereas they should have been allocated in
the ratio of sales between the units. Accordingly, in the reopened assessment, the
AO   recomputed     the   deduction    u/s   80IB   at   Rs.5,42,81,222/-      instead       of
Rs.6,45,18,933/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the reassessment made by the
AO u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is not valid. Aggrieved by the
impugned decision, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.     Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is
pertinent to mention that there is no dispute that the original statement has been
completed u/s 143(3) and the case has been reopened after four years from the end
of the relevant assessment year. The case has been reopened by the AO on the
grounds that (i) Depreciation of Rs.15,00,395/- pertaining to common assets claimed
by the assessee in its return is not reduced while computing the deduction u/s 80IB
in the order u/s 143(3) and (ii) common corporate expenses have been allotted by
the assessee at 10% on estimate basis whereas they should have been allocated in
the ratio of sales between the units. In this connection, it is relevant to state that no
new material or information has come to the possession of the AO subsequent to the
original assessment and the entire information has been available in form 10CCB
filed along with return or in the various submissions made at the time of original
assessment. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no full or true disclosures by
the assessee. This clearly indicates that the condition prescribed in the proviso to
section 147 is not fulfilled by the AO for reopening the assessment already
completed by the AO u/s 143(3). Further, the perusal of the original assessment
                                            3                     ITA No. 6662/Mum/2011
                                                                      M/s. Monsanto India Ltd.
                                                                 Assessment Year: 2004-05

order indicates that the deduction u/s 80IB has been scrutinized by the AO and vide
para 6.2 of order, the plant wise Profit and Loss account along with the plant wise
depreciation has been placed in the order itself. Also, the assessee has pointed out
vide submissions dated 22.12.2006 and 31.03.2004, a completed disclosures with
regard to the plant wise allocation of depreciation and cost during the course of the
original assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment amounts to a review of the
original assessment order, which is not legally tenable as the same would amount to
change of opinion. It is found that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the said
facts in the light of various decisions to come to a conclusion that the notice issued
u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and liable to be cancelled.


4.1    As regards the contention of the Revenue relying on the decisions of the
Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rinku Chakraborthy 242 CTR 425 in
support of the proposition that when the income liable to be assessed to tax has
escaped assessment due to oversight/inadvertent mistake committed by the AO, the
AO has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, it is pertinent to mention that the
claim of the Revenue is not supported with cogent reasons to explain that the AO,
during the assessment earlier completed u/s 143(3), due to oversight/inadvertent
mistake, allowed the claim of the assessee. As regards the Delhi High Court decision
in the case of Dalmia Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT relied by the Revenue to support the
proposition that despite specific and pointed queries in the assessment proceedings
u/s 143(3), the AO cannot be said to have formed any opinion if explicit opinion is
not recorded, the perusal of para 6.2 of the assessment order earlier passed under
section 143(3) clearly indicates that the AO has formed an explicit opinion on the
issue depreciation for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s 80IB. Therefore,
we do not find any merit in the contention of the Revenue relying on the said
decisions. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are of the considered view
that the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) holding that the reassessment made by the AO
u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act is a not valid deserves to be
upheld. Since, the notice u/s 148, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent
                                         4                        ITA No. 6662/Mum/2011
                                                                      M/s. Monsanto India Ltd.
                                                                 Assessment Year: 2004-05






reassessment order are held to be invalid, the merits on the impugned additions are
not required to be further adjudicated upon.

5.    In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

 Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of September, 2014.

             Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
        (SANJAY ARORA)                                     (Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN)
      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 10.09.2014
*Srivastava
Copy to: The Appellant
         The Respondent
         The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
         The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
         The DR "B" Bench
                                  //True Copy//

                                                     By Order

                                        Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting