Ita/347/2015 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Gurgaon v. M/S Atotech India Ltd

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDI GARH --I TA 347 2015 ( O&M) -Dat e of deci si on: 30. 11. 2016 The Pr . Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax, Gur gaon Ver sus . . . Appel l ant M/ s At ot ech I ndi a Lt d. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CEHON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL Pr esent : -Mr . Taj ender K. Joshi , Advocat e,f or t he appel l ant . Mr . Sal i l Kapoor , Advocat e, Mr . Sumi t Lal chandani , Advocat e,f or t he r espondent . * * * * S. J. VAZI FDAR, C. J. ( ORAL) Thi s i s an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunalal l owi ng t he r espondent / assessee’ s appeal agai nst t he or der oft he CI T ( Appeal s) i n r espect of t he assessment year 2004- 2005.2.Accor di ng t o t he appel l ant , t he f ol l owi ng subst ant i alquest i ons of l aw ar i se: - “ 1. Whet her on t he f act s and i n t heci r cumst ances of t he case and i n l aw,t he Hon’ bl e Tr i bunal was j ust i f i ed i ncancel l i ng t he penal t y u/ s 271( 1) ( c)of t he I ncome Tax Act , 1961 ofRs. 62, 41, 758/ - ? 2. Whet her on t he f act s and i n t heci r cumst ances of t he case and i n l aw,t he Hon’ bl e Tr i bunal was j ust i f i ed i nhol di ng t hat r ej ect i on of t he pat ent l ywr ong cl ai m of t he assessee of set t i ngof f of br ought f or war d busi ness l ossi n i t s r et ur n ofi ncome woul d notamount t o f ur ni shi ng of i naccur at epar t i cul ar s of i ncome/ conceal ment ofi ncome and woul d not be l i abl e f or penal t y u/ s 271( 1) ( c) of t he I T Act ,1961?” 3.The quest i on i s whet her t he assessee i s l i abl e t openal t y i n vi ew of i t s change of st and i n r espect of i t s r et ur nof i ncome f or t he sai d assessment year . 4.The assessee was ear l i er known as Max At ot echLi mi t ed. I t appear s i ni t i al l y t o have been a pr i vat e l i mi t edcompany and was t her eaf t er conver t ed i nt o a publ i c l i mi t edcompany. For t he assessment year 2004- 2005, t he assessee i n i t sr et ur n of i ncome sought t o set of f i t s i ncome agai nst t hebr ought f or war d busi ness l osses of t he ear l i er year s.Pr oceedi ngs under Sect i on 143 of t he I ncome Tax Act , 1961( i n shor t t he Act )wer e i ni t i at ed i n t he cour se of whi ch t heassessee by a l et t er dat ed 13. 12. 2006 cl ai med t he above set of fagai nst anot her head, namel y, ofunabsor bed depr eci at i on.Admi t t edl y, t he t ax ef f ect i n ei t her case i s ni l . Fur t her , i ti s admi t t ed t hat even i f t he r espondent was per mi t t ed t o cl ai mt he set of f agai nstt he unabsor bed depr eci at i on, i t woul d haveno f i nanci al i mpl i cat i on f or t he f ut ur e. 5.The deci si on of t he Tr i bunal t hat t he r espondentought not t o be made l i abl e f or penal t y cannot be sai d t o beper ver se or absur d. 6.The Tr i bunal not ed t hat t he r espondent had cl ai medt he set of f of i t s busi ness i ncome of Rs. 1. 85 cr or es agai nstt he br ought f or war d busi ness l osses of t he ear l i er year s on t hebasi s ofa l egal opi ni on r ecei vedf r om a l eadi ng f i r m ofChar t er ed Account ant s dat ed 15. 06. 2001. The Tr i bunal f oundnot hi ng cl andest i ne i n t he manner i n whi ch t he opi ni on wassought . I n any event , even our at t ent i on was not i nvi t ed t oanyt hi ng whi ch suggest s any mal af i des ei t her i n t he obt ai ni ngof t he opi ni on or ot her wi se. Fur t her , t he l oss was al l owed t obe car r i ed f or war d i n t he assessment year , namel y, assessmentyear 2002- 2003. I nt er al i a, i n t hese ci r cumst ances, t heTr i bunal f ound as a mat t er of f act t hat t he l et t erAmodh Sharma2016.12.03 11:46I attest to the accuracy anddat ed 13. 12. 2006 was vol unt ar y and not mer el y because a not i ceauthenticity of this documentchandigarh had been i ssued under Sect i on 143( 2) of t he Act .Thi s i s aper cept i on on t he basi s of t he f act s of t he case and war r ant sno i nt er f er ence. 7.I n t hese ci r cumst ances i ncl udi ng i n vi ew of t he f actt hat t her e i s no f i nanci al i mpl i cat i on on account of t he changei n t he basi s of t hecl ai m,no subst ant i al quest i on of l awar i ses i n t hi s case. 8.The appeal i s, t her ef or e, di smi ssed. 9.I n vi ew t her eof , i t i s not necessar y t o consi der t hecr oss obj ect i ons f i l ed by t he r espondent . ( S. J. VAZI FDAR)CHI EF JUSTI CE 30. 11. 2016 AmodhWhet her speaki ng/ r easonedWhet her r epor t abl e Yes/ NoYes/ No ( DEEPAK SI BAL)JUDGE