Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Metrochem Industries Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1124/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)Versus M/S. METROCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR. HARDIK V VORA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 27/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ in ITA No. 1220/Ahd/2004 for AY 1996-97. 2.While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the notice u/s. 143(2) has been issued in this case after the expiry of 12 months and therefore the reassessment made by Assessing officer is not valid ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in not considering that in view of the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2006 in respect of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1991,notice u/s. 143(2) can be issued even after a period of 12 months from filing of return of income?” 3.Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. 4.Learned advocate appearing for the appellant O/TAXAP/1124/2006 JUDGMENT has pointed out that the proviso to section 148(1) inserted by the Parliament on 28.2.2006 in the IT Act, provides that notice issued after 12 monthsbutbeforethecompletionof assessment/reassessment in respect of the return u/s. 148 furnished during the period from 1.10.1991 to 30.9.2005 shall be deemed to be a valid notice. In that view of the matter, the matter is required to be considered in light of the amended provisions. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that in view of the amendment, the matter is required to be remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration. Hence, in view of the amended provisions, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be re-considered by ITAT after considering the factual matrix of the matter and amended provisions of the Act. 5.In that view of the matter, both the orders passed by CIT(A) as well as ITAT are quashed and set aside only on this ground. It goes without mentioning that we have not considered the matter on merits. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Therefore, as the matters are remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration, the questions are not answered. The present Tax Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora 5.In that view of the matter, both the orders passed by CIT(A) as well as ITAT are quashed and set aside only on this ground. It goes without mentioning that we have not considered the matter on merits. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Therefore, as the matters are remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration, the questions are not answered. The present Tax Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora O/TAXAP/1124/2006 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J)