The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1 v. M/S Morgan Stanley India Securities

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.953 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-1....Appellant Vs. M/s Morgan Stanley India Securities ....Respondent.Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for Appellant.Mr. Niraj Sheth a/w Mr. A.K. Jasani, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR ANDSMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. P.C: 1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there were no new materials in possession of the assessing officer for reopening of the assessment.justified in quashing the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there were no new materials in possession of the assessing officer for reopening of the assessment. 2. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that though the assessment has been reopened within four assessing years, initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is not based on any new material or information which had come to the possession of the assessing officer after completion of original assessment under assessment has been reopened within four assessing years, initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is not based on any new material or information which had come to the possession of the assessing officer after completion of original assessment under Section 143(3). On the basis of the material on record, if the assessing officer has taken a possible view, then on the basis of the same material, the A.O. cannot seek to reopen the assessment to take a different view. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner-of IncomeTaxvs. Kelvinator of India Limited, reported in [2010] 320ITR 561 (SC) has held that the assessment within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can be reopened provided that there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that“”there was escapement of income from assessment. In the present case, the finding of fact recorded is that there was no tangible“material for reopening of the assessment. Hence we see no merit”in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR, J. )