Ita/167/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Apollo Tyres Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMASTHURSDAY, THE 29 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 167 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 300/2009 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K. RAVEENDRANATHA MENONSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXCHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LIMITEDCHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-682 031. BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKANSRI.BINU MATHEWSRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SR.SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 29.07.2021,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Jose Joseph and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos for parties. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is therespondent. The instant appeal is filed against the order ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) CochinBench in ITA No.300/Coch/2009 dated 21.12.2012. The Tribunal,through the order under challenge in the appeal, held thatreopening proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) are illegal, andconsequently annuled the reopening proceedings. In thesubject appeal, the assessment relates to Assessment Year 2004- I.T.A. No.167/2013 05. The following questions are stated for consideration: i.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact inannulling the reopening proceedings and in settingaside the order of CIT (A)? ii.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is right is law and fact in holdingthat the assessment was reopened mainly on the basisof change of opinion and is not the finding wrong,perverse and without appreciating the failure of theassessee to disclose fully and truly all material factswithout an occasion to form an opinion and therebynot forming an opinion while completing the originalassessment? 3.The Revenue filed ITA No.41/2011 raising the same substantial questions of law for the assessment Year 2001-02and ITA No.69/2011 for the Assessment Year 2002-03. This Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2019 dismissed the appealsfiled by the Revenue answering the questions in favour of the I.T.A. No.167/2013 assessee. In the present case as well, the Revenue refers to ITANo.41/2011 and ITA No.69/2011 in the synopsis. By followingthe judgment of this Court dated 27.02.2019 in ITA Nos. 41 and69 of 2011, the questions are answered in favour of the Assesseeand against the Revenue. ITA No.167/2013 is dismissed accordingly. No order as tocosts. Sd/- S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMASJUDGE jjj PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE B ANNEXURE C APPENDIX OF ITA 167/2013 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 147 DATED 12/12/2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2004-05. COPY OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER NO.24, 25, 26 & 27/R-1/E/CIT-II/08-09 DATED 30/03/2009. COPY OF THE ITAT'S ORDER ITA NO.300/COCH/2009 DATED 21/12/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.