Itat/252/2022 Ia No: Ga/1/2022, Ga/2/2022 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd

OD–1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/252/2022IA NO: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATAVS.HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 13[th] January, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv.Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...for appellantMr. Ajay Gaggar, Adv.Mr. Hiranyak Gangopadhyay, Adv.…for respondent GA/1/2022 The Court : - Heard respective Counsel for either side. There is a delay of 378 days in filing the appeal. From the relevant dates we findthat the appellant department would be entitled to the benefit of the order passed by theHon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation for filing appeal under variousStatutes. Hence, for such reason the application is allowed and the delay in filing theappeal is condoned. ITAT/252/2022 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(the Act) is directed against the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2455/Kol/2019 for theassessment year 2008-2009. The revenue has raised following substantial questions oflaw for consideration :- i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the LearnedTribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in holding that re-opening ofassessment is bad in law and in quashing the assessment order dated21.01.2016?Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in holding that re-opening ofassessment is bad in law and in quashing the assessment order dated21.01.2016? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in quashing thereopening of assessment order under section 148 of the Act as bad in lawthereby deleting the addition made on the basis of disallowance ofRs.6,92,90,000/- claimed on account of Provision of VAT ? iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the LearnedTribunal erred in holding that in the reason recorded for reopening there isno allegation of failure on the part of the assessee in AY 2008-2009 totruly and fully disclose material facts and also ignoring the fact that trueand full facts are provided in the notes on accounts for subsequentAssessment Year 2009-10 and not in the subject Assessment Year 2008-09 which led the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment ? The short issue, which falls for consideration, is whether the reopening of theassessment was validly done. The learned Tribunal on going through the reasons forreopening recorded the findings on fact that there was no allegation made by theassessing officer that there was failure on the part of the assessee to truly and validlydisclose material facts necessary for the assessment. We have perused the reasons forreopening which have been extracted in the assessment order dated 21.1.2016 passedunder Section 147 read with Section 154 and Section 143(3) of the Act. From the reasons it is evidently clear that material already available in the booksof accounts have been re-apprised by the assessing officer and notice under Section 148has been issued. The manner of such reopening has been frowned upon in severaldecisions as the fundamental principles of law is that the reason should disclose failure on the part of the assessee to truly and validly disclose material facts necessary for theassessment. In the absence of any such allegations against the assessee the Tribunalwas fully justified in re-appreciating the fact and coming to the conclusion that thereopening of the assessment was bad in law. Thus we find that there is no substantialquestions of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and dismissed. The application being GA/2/2022 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Pkd/GH. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)