The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii v. M/S. B.p.m. Industries Ltd

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.214 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income tax,Central III.v. M/s. B.P.M. Industries Ltd. ...Appellant. ...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Deepak Tralshawala i/by Markand Gandhi & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 4[th] December, 2012 PC: The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal read thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of learned CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment as illegal and void ab-initio, ignoring and without appreciating the evidence on record, the opportunity of being heard given to the assessee and the correct factual and legal position of the case vis-a-vis the provisions of Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act? 2)The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 1996-97. The ITAT has followed its decision in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1995-96 dated 5/12/2006 and allowed the claim of the assessee. On an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ITAT for A.Y. 1995-96, this Court allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and restored the appeal before the ITAT for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. 3)Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96 is distinguishable on facts as in that case the reasons for reopening the assessment were not handed over to the assessee. If the facts relating to the assessment year 1995-96 were distinguishable, then the Tribunal could not have disposed of the appeal relating to assessment year 1996-97 by following the order relating to assessment year 1995-96. 4)In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of ITAT dated 29/9/2008 in (ITA No.2367/M/2006 relating to A.Y.1996-97) and restore the matter to the file of ITAT for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. 5The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)