Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-1 v. M/S. Cipla Ltd

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 … Appellant v/s M/s. Cipla Ltd. … Respondent Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellant. Mr.N.S. Joshi i/by S. Udeshi & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2014 P. C. : 1Having heard Mr.Chanderpal appearing on behalf of the appellant and perusing with his assistance the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31[st] May, 2011, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 2The assessee has raised an objection to the reopening of the assessment. He had contended that reopening of the assessment is beyond permissible parameters in law. If the Assessing Officer has failed to perform his duty in law, then, he cannot reopen the assessment. In this case, the Tribunal has found and as a matter of fact that the assessee's responsibility has been discharged. The assessee had disclosed the basic facts and details. It was too much of the assessee, in the given facts and circumstances, to disclose a possible addition. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal did not uphold the plea of the department. 3Mr.Chanderpal submits that this is a fit case where the parameters of reopening the assessment ought to be laid down. In a given case, the Tribunal may term the action as being vitiated by mere change of opinion, but what could be a change of opinion must be circumscribed and defined is the submission of Mr.Chanderpal. 4We do not think that the same needs to be considered and decided and in the peculiar facts of this case. It has been found by the Tribunal that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. It is only then that the assessee could have submitted to the course adopted by the Assessing Officer and not otherwise. If the finding of fact is that the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, at the stage of original assessment proceedings, is the only reason for reopening them, then, the stand of the department cannot be upheld. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer has called all the relevant information but he decided not to probe the matter further. Now that initial inaction is tried to be corrected and the course adopted for the same was not permissible in law and such is the finding recorded by the Tribunal. That does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)