Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltuchennai v. M/S.simpson & Company Ltd.,861/862, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.47 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax - LTUChennai ... Appellant/Appellant -vs- M/s.Simpson & Company Ltd.,861/862, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent/RespondentTax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunalBench'C', Chennai, dated18.08.2010, inITA.No.857/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2001.02 againstorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) LTU, AnnaNagar, Chennai dated 08.03.2010 made in I.T.A.No.39/08-09/LTU(A)against order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, largeTax Payer Unit, dated 11.12.2008 made in G1No./PA No.AAACS4909Ffor the Assessment Year 2001-02. For Appellant: M/s.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanbhan JUDGMENT This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), isdirected against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'C', Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "theTribunal") dated 18.08.2010, in ITA.No.857/Mds/2010 for theassessment year 2001.02. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal has been admitted by order dated 23.02.2011,on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in confirming the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling thereassessment for the assessment year 2001-02 asinvalid, even though the assessee had not made afull and true disclosure of the necessary detailsat the stage of the original assessment? 3.Heard M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counselfor the respondent/assessee. 4.The assessment herein for consideration was reopened byissuing notice under Section 148 of the Act by order dated11.12.2008. Against such reopening, the assessee filed anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), LTU andthe same was allowed by order dated 08.03.2010. Aggrieved bythe same, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and they are before us by wayof this Tax Case Appeal. 5.The short question is whether factually the Commissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal considered the validity of thereopening proceedings. At this juncture, it is worthwhile tofollowing the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals)vide its order dated 08.03.2010:"4.3..........The AO had sought clarificationon this issue vide his letter dated 09.02.2004which was duly explained by the appellant by givingthe break-up of expenditure including technicalassistance fee paid to AVL List GMBH, Austria. TheAO has sought clarification and after consideringthe details and explanation allowed the claim ofthe assessee. This being so, it cannot be saidthat there was any failure on the part of theassessee to furnish full and complete particularson the basis of which the assessment order waspassed. There is also no mention in the reopenedassessment as to what was not furnished by theassessee which has resulted in reopening." 6.The above finding will clearly show that the AssessingOfficer while completing the initial enquiry has sought forclarification from the assessee. The assessee has given writtenexplanation. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) held that itis a clear case of change of opinion and the correctness of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The above finding will clearly show that the AssessingOfficer while completing the initial enquiry has sought forclarification from the assessee. The assessee has given writtenexplanation. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) held that itis a clear case of change of opinion and the correctness of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was tested by the Tribunal and the Tribunal noted that therequired breakup details were furnished even at the time oforiginal assessment and therefore, no new information availablewith the Assessing Officer nor any information was omitted bythe assessee to be given to the Assessing Officer. Further, onthe merits of the matter also, the Tribunal found that thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RotorkControl Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 was applied. Thus,we find that there is no error in the order passed by theTribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed.Consequently, the substantial question of law is answeredagainst the revenue. No costs. cse Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C', Chennai.2. The Income Tax Officer (Appeals) LTU, Chennai.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax payer Unit, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanaban, Advocate, S.R.No.83875T.C.(A) No.47 of 2011 svn(co)kak(22/01/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/