Itxa/753/2016 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax City 13 v. M/S. Popley Diamond And Gold Plaza Pvt. Ltd

Priya Soparkar 112 itxa 747-16 n 16 itxa 753-16-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.747 OF 2016WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.753 OF 2016 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax… Appellant V/s. M/s Popley Diamond & Gold Plaza Pvt. Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.Ashok Kotangle with Ms.Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Mr.Atul Jasani for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018. P.C.:- 1.These appeals arise from common background. Forconvenience, we may record facts from Income Tax Appeal No.747 of 2016. 2.The Revenue has challenged the judgment of Income TaxAppellate Tribunal dated 12[th] August, 2015. Priya Soparkar 3.Following question is presented for our consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was correct incancelling the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T.Act for the year under considerationholding that notice u/s.148 was bad in law withoutappreciating the fact that in this case no scrutinyassessment was done u/s.143(3) and that the re-opening of the case by way of issuance of notice u/s148 of the Act was very much within the purview oflaw?” 4.Learned counsel for the parties drew our attention to theorder dated 4[th] December, 2018 in Income Tax Appeal No.666 of2016 in which concerning this very assessee a similar issue wasconsidered by this Court, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. We notice that the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wascommon covering the present assessment year also. Followingobservations may be noted: “4.Learned counsel for the Revenue maybe correct in pointing out that in the presentcase the Tribunal ought not to haveinvalidated the re-assessment on the groundof no failure of disclosure or that no newmaterial was available with the AssessingOfficer since the assessment was framedunder Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Tribunal" for short). 5.However, as noted the particular claim Priya Soparkar which the Assessing Officer wants to revisitthrough the re-assessment proceedings, isnot a new one. It was started by theassessee for the first time in the AssessmentYear 2000-2001 and was accepted by theDepartment. Without there being any otherchange, such issue could not have been re-issued in the present assessment year,particularly when the claim was alsoaccepted after scrutiny in the AssessmentYear 2001-2002. 6.In the circumstances, it can be seenthat the reason for re-opening theassessment lacks validity or in other words,the Assessing Officer did not have reason tobelieve that income chargeable tax hadescaped assessment. 7.In the result, Tax Appeal isdismissed.” In the result, without recording independent reasons, these tax appeals also dismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) ….