Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 v. Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.112 OF 2017WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.115 OF 2017WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.113 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-27 .... Appellant versus Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd.... Respondent ….... Mr.Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr.Prabhakar Ranshur, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr.Prabhakar Ranshur, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Sanjeev M. Shah, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Sanjeev M. Shah, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 12[th] MARCH, 2019. P.C. : 1. The Income Tax Appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11/12/2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question ispresented for our consideration; 2 / 3 08-ITXA-112-17.odt “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right indismissing the Revenue's appeal without adjudicatingon merits of the case on the issue of assessee's claimof deduction u/s.80P(2)(ia) r.w.s 80P(2)(d) &2(24) by allowing the assessee's appeal that theproceedings u/s 147 of the I T Act, 1961 were voidab initio?” 2. Respondent Assessee is a Credit Society. The issuepertains to the validity of reassessment proceedings. Theassessee's return for the assessment year 2007-08 was taken inscrutiny by the Assessment Officer. He passed the order undersection 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act')on 29/09/2009. To reopen such assessment, he issued noticeunder section 148 of the Act within a period of four years fromthe end of relevant assessment year. For issuing such noticeAssessing Officer had placed reliance on an amendment broughtin by the legislature on 01/04/2006 with retrospective effect.This was the sole basis for reopening the assessment. Tribunalby the impugned judgment held that the assessee's claim of 3 / 3 08-ITXA-112-17.odt deduction under section 80(P)(2) of the Act was examined bythe Assessment Officer during original scrutiny Assessment. The Assessing Officer did not have any additional material to reopenthe assessment. The action of the Assessment Officer to reopenthe assessment would be based on the change of information. 3. We find no error in view of the tribunal. When theclaim was examined during the original scrutiny assessment, theassessment could not have been reopened, on the basis of anamendment which was already in existence when theassessment was framed. In such circumstances no question oflaw arises. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)