Ita/95/2018 Of Principal Commissionher Of Income Tax v. M/S.mahanadi Coalfields Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 95 of 2018 ….Principal Commissioner of Income AppellantTax, Sambalpur Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel-versus- …. M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Respondent None Order No. CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 24.11.2022 02. 1. The challenge by the Revenue in the present appeal is to the order dated 19[th] March, 2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) allowing ITA No.300/CTK/2014 filed by the Respondent-Assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Revenue seeks to urge the question whether the ITAT was right in accepting the plea of the Respondent that the reopening of the assessment for the aforementioned AY only on the basis of an audit report and in the absence of any new tangible material is sustainable in law? dated 19[th] March, 2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) allowing ITA No.300/CTK/2014 filed by the Respondent-Assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Revenue seeks to urge the question whether the ITAT was right in accepting the plea of the Respondent that the reopening of the assessment for the aforementioned AY only on the basis of an audit report and in the absence of any new tangible material is sustainable in law? 2. The factual position is that the Assessing Officer initiated the assessment proceedings only on the basis of a tax audit report and financial statements which were already before the AO in the scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. assessment proceedings only on the basis of a tax audit report and financial statements which were already before the AO in the scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. It being the settled position of law that reopening of an assessment cannot be based on the same materials already available before the cannot be based on the same materials already available before the S.K. Jena/Secy. AO in the original assessment proceedings, the Court sees no substantial questions of law arising from the impugned order of the ITAT. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge Chief Justice (M.S. Raman)