Itxa/495/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 v. Priya Ltd

sbw *1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.495 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-2..Appellant -Versus-Priya Ltd...Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Sameer Dalal with P. C. Tripathi i/b. Mr. A. K. Jasani for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 21[st] August, 2014 P.C.: 1]We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing in support of this appeal. We have also perused the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 9[th] September, 2011 and which pertains to assessment year 2001-02. 2]The only question and which is termed as a substantial question of law is that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee even though the ingredients necessary for re-opening the assessment have been fully satisfied. The Tribunal has also noted the change of law but quashed and set aside the exercise undertaken and this was not 1/3 permissible. 3]We cannot accept this contention for the simple reason that the Assessing Officer may be justified in undertaking the exercise of assessing the income once again but for that to be done, he must comply with the pre-requisites thereof. The Tribunal has concluded that there was no material before the Assessing Officer to hold that any income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The assessee made full closure in the original return and the Assessing Officer after due application of mind allow the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the reopening of the assessment is merely because of the amendment or change in the statute but other conditions enabling reopening of the assessment were not satisfied with that the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 8[th] February, 2007 and allowed the assessee's appeal. 4]In doing this, Tribunal also applied the legal principles and correctly. Those also have been reiterated by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range/Circle-VII(3) reported in (2012) 349 ITR 656. For all these reasons, we do not find that the Tribunal's order can be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 2/3 *3* 5]The appeal is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There would be no orders as to costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa