Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad _ v. M/S Motorola India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.03.2015 ITA No. 416 of 2014 (O&M) Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad _ ----Appellant Versus M/s Motorola India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. -----Respondent Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Vaziidar, Acting Chief JusticeHon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu inTo be referred to the Reporters or not? ? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant, 9999 S.J. VAZIRFADAR, A.C.J. (Oral CM/01223/Cll/0245 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 113 days in re-filing the appeal, 1s condoned. Civil Misc. Application is allowed, ITA No. 436 of 2014 This appeal is against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissingthe appellant's appeal against the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The matter pertains to assessment year2003-04| )The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that) there was no justification for initiating the re-opening of proceedings underSections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the matter in considerabledetail. 3.The respondents had disclosed all relevant material the respondent hadfiled a copy of the assessment order dated 27.03.2006 earlier passed underSection 143(3) of the Act. The note enclosed with the return of income made itclear that the expenditure incurred on software purchased during the relevant yearhad been treated as revenue expenditure, which was in accordance with the orderof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the previous assessment year1996-97 in the respondent's own case. The respondents had submitted before theAssessing Officer that the expenditure on purchase of software was a revenueexpenditure in nature and had also filed all necessary details as regards theaccounts. The re-opening was based only on a change of opinion. | 4It is not even contended that any material has been withheld or suppressedby the respondents inadvertently or otherwise. No new material was relied uponin respect of the impugned proceedings. Nor is it suggested that the assessingofficer did not notice the relevant material while making the assessment order. 5.In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises.The appeal 1s therefore dismissed.The appeal 1s therefore dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DT 3 QOS Atul (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE