Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd

1 / 3 22-ITXA-203-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.203 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .... Appellant versus Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. ….... ... Respondent •Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 15[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionis presented for our consideration; “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that theorder of reassessment passed u/s. 143(3) rws passed inpursuance to notice u/s. 148 is void-ab-initio deserved tobe quashed and set aside?” 2 / 3 22-ITXA-203-17.odt 2. Issue pertains to reopening of assessment within aperiod four years from the end of assessment year. The return ofthe assessee was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. Aftercompletion of such assessment, he issued the notice ofreopening of assessement on the ground that the assessee'sclaim of deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was not allowable. The tribunal by theimpugned judgment held that the assessee as per the relevantprovisions of section 10B, existing at the relevant time, hadchosen the initial assessement year of 1997-1998. The assesseethus made a claim for deduction under section 10B of the Actthrough said assessment year 1997-1998 and onwards. TheAssessing Officer during the course of original assessmentproceedings had examined the entire claim, had also enquiredinto the commencement of manufacturing and period of claim ofdeduction and all other conditions needed to be fulfilled forsustaining claim under section 10B of the Act. In the opinion ofthe tribunal, therefore, reopening the assessment on the sameissue would not be permissible. The tribunal referred to and relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of IndiaLtd. Reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 3. We do not find any error in the view of the tribunal. When during the original scrutiny assessment, the assessee'sclaim of deduction under section 10B of the Act was scrutinized,any attempt on part of Assessing Officer to reexamine the saidclaim, without any material would be based on change ofopinion. Reopening of assessment was therefore clearlyimpermissible. 4. In the result no question of law arises. Income TaxAppeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)