Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Chennai v. M/S.nagappa Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-2

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIANandThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN TCA.No.207 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai....AppellantVsM/s.Nagappa Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-2....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 23.9.2015 made in I.T.A.No.2686/Mds/2014on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A'Bench for the assessment year 2004-05. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appealsIV No.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34 ITa.NO.291/13-14 dated30.4.2014 PAN.No. for the assessment year 2004-2005 ndthe order of the Income Tax officer (OSD) Company Circle I(4)chennai dated 29.12.2010 PAN.No. Re assessment orderfor the assessment year 2004-05. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J The Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the following twosubstantial questions of law :"(i) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in annulling thereassessment made under Section 147 holdingthat the reopening of assessment beyond fouryears period as the assessee has notconcealed any particulars of income duringthe original assessment proceedings ? and(ii) Whether under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income Tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appellate Tribunal was correct in notappreciating the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) as per which, the time limit of issue ofnotice under Section 148 in a case where theescapement of income chargeable to taxamounts to or is likely to amount to one lakhruppes or more is six years?" 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe Department. 3. The assessment for the year 2004-05 was completed underSection 143(3) read with Section 147 on 29.11.2006. Afternoticing that the assessee had advanced Rs.50 lakhs for thepurchase of the land to its sister concern, the assessment wasreopened under Section 147. In response to the notice forreopening, the assessee filed a return admitting a particularincome. Thereafter, the reassessment proceedings went on and anorder was passed. 4. The assessee filed an appeal on the ground that on amere change of opinion, the assessment was reopened. The appealwas rejected, forcing the assessee to file a further appealbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee haddisclosed all material facts at the time of assessment underSection 143(3) and that therefore, the reopening of assessmentbeyond four years was not valid in law. It is against the saidorder that the Revenue has come up with the above appeal. 5. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, this was a secondattempt at reopening. Though the Revenue contends that oneparticular aspect was not taken into account during the firstreopening, which related to loans and advances, the originalreassessment proceedings indicate that it had been taken intoaccount. Therefore, we find that the order of the Tribunal doesnot call for any interference. 6. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar RS To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai-34 2. The Commissioner of Income tax Appeals IVNo.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34 3. The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Company Circle IV, (4) Chennai 1 cc to Mr.T.R. Senthilkumar, Advocate, sr. 22962 TCA.No.207 of 2016 AD (CO)kk 25/4