Itxa/5082/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu Mumbai v. Bajaj Auto Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(L) NO.2859 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Ms. Vasanti B. Patel for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1.In the appeal by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 18[th] June, 2009, as many as twelve questions of law have been formulated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue states that since the only question that is sought to be urged is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year was not proper, only question (a) is pressed. Learned counsel states that the remaining questions, (b) to (l) are not pressed and they may not be answered as they have not been decided on merits by the Tribunal. Question (a) reads as follows:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the reopening of assessment after four years was bad in law as it is not specifically disclosed in the reasons recorded that income had escaped assessment on account of the failure on the part of the Assessee Company to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessemt ? “ 2.The appeal pertains to assessment year 1995-96. 3.In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 31[st] December, 1997. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27[th] March, 2002. The Tribunal held, following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Hindusthan Lever Ltd. V/s. ACIT [268 ITR 332], that no reasons have been indicated by the Assessing Officer to show that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the conclusion of the assessment. Hence, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year has not been fulfilled. 4.At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has stated before the Court that no reasons were indicated by the Assessing Officer whatsoever to sustain an inference that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the conclusion of the assessment. In view of this concession by counsel for the revenue, no fault can be found with the judgment of the Tribunal since in that case, the condition stipulated by the law for reopening the assessment beyond the period of four years was not fulfilled. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)