Tax,Coimbatore v. M/S.abt Limited, Coimbatore-18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.7.2020CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL No.967 of 2013(heard through video conferencing) The Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore Vs ...Appellant M/s.ABT Limited, Coimbatore-18. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated04.7.2013madeinITA.No.154/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench for the assessment year 2004-05.Against the order of the commissioner of Income TaxAppeals I, Coimbatore dated 02.11.2012 Appeal not appearingin person or by an Advocate.398/11-12 for the Assessmentyear 2004-05. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle 1(1) Coimbatore dated 30.12.2011PAN No/GIR.NO.AABCA8398K for the Assessment year 2004-05.Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax dated 31.12.2009 in PAN/GIR No. forthe assessment year 2004-05. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthikumar, SSC &Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSC For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel and Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned JuniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue andMr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. With consent of the learned counselon either side, the appeal itself is taken up for finaldisposal. 2. The appeal has been admitted on 02.4.2014 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “1. Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was right insetting aside the assessment made underSection 147 holding that the same wasinitiated on account of change ofopinion ? And2. Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that there was no failure onthe part of the assessee to disclosetruly and fully the details andparticulars necessary for completingearlier assessment made under Section143(3) read with Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act?” 3. The assessment for the year 2004-05 wascompleted by the Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3)and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) byorder dated 31.12.2009. Subsequently, the assessment wasreopened by the Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3) and147 of the Act, which culminated in the order of assessmentdated 30.12.2011. Aggrieved by the same and moreparticularly the expenses incurred on the cost ofconstruction of building on the lease hold building/land,the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore [for brevity, the CIT(A)]. Ultimately, the CIT(A), by order dated 02.11.2012,allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. As against the order passed by the CIT(A), theRevenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench (hereinafter called theTribunal). The Tribunal, after considering the factual position, came to the conclusion that the reopening was achange of opinion and dismissed the appeal filed by theRevenue by order dated 04.7.2013. As against that, theRevenue is on appeal before us. 4. As against the order passed by the CIT(A), theRevenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench (hereinafter called theTribunal). The Tribunal, after considering the factual position, came to the conclusion that the reopening was achange of opinion and dismissed the appeal filed by theRevenue by order dated 04.7.2013. As against that, theRevenue is on appeal before us. 5. After elaborately hearing the learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant – Revenue and thelearned counsel for the respondent – assessee, we are ofthe considered view that the reasons assigned by theTribunal for dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue areperfectly justified. The Tribunal took note of the factthat the respondent - assessee filed computation statementalong with the original assessment, which showed theexpenditure on construction of building on lease holdland/building and this was specifically mentioned andclaimed as a revenue expenditure. The assessment wascompleted after examining the computation statement andbreak-up details furnished by the assessee. After takinginto consideration these facts and the fact that theassessment was reopened beyond a period of four years andalso after considering the Proviso to Section 147 of theAct, the Tribunal held that the reopening was one of changeof opinion. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal,on facts, found that the respondent – assessee made a fulldisclosure of the expenditure and claimed the same as arevenue expenditure. We hold that no substantial questionof law arises for consideration in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal fails andis dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals I,Coimbatore.Coimbatore. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company circle 1(1), Coimbatore.Company circle 1(1), Coimbatore. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle 1(2), CoimbatoreCompany Circle 1(2), Coimbatore T.C.A.No.967 of 2013 MG(CO)CB(03/08/2020)