Itxa/1315/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1315 OF 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) .. Appellant v/s. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) .. Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant Mr. Niraj Sheth I/b Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 4[th] FEBRUARY, 2019 1.The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). Following question is presented for our consideration :- “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that in view ofproviso to Section 147 no action can be taken u/s 147 beyondthe period of four years if the case does not fall within theexception of the proviso itself, namely, if there is no case offailure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly allmaterial facts, which are necessary for assessment for the year ofassessment, even though assessee has not offered accrued incomefor taxation?” 2.This question would suggest the issue pertains to validity of reopening of the assessment of the respondent assessee. The year under consideration was Assessment Year 2003-04. The AssessingOfficer issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961("the Act" for short) beyond the period of 4 years from the end of therelevant assessment year. The Tribunal by detailed consideration, inthe impugned judgment held that the Assessing Officer had nojurisdiction to issue such notice primarily on the ground that theassessee has not truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary forassessment in its return. The Tribunal referred to various judgments ofthis Court as well as Supreme Court in this context, reference to whichis not necessary. In view of undiputable fact that there was no failureon the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material factsnecessary for the assessment, the decision of the Tribunal to declare thenotice of reopening of assessment issued beyond the period of 4 yearsfrom the end of the relevant assessment year as invalid, does not call forany interference. The question is therefore not entertained. 3.The tax appeal is therefore dismissed. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)