The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd Salem Road, Kathaparai, Karur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai...Appellant/RespondentVs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank LtdSalem Road, Kathaparai, Karur....Respondent /Appellant----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai dated 09.03.2012 in MP.No.151/MDS/2006 in ITA No.681/Mds/2003 and against the order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli, madein ITA.No. 147/2002-03, dated 24/02/2003 and against the orderpassed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle – I, Tiruchirapalli, made in PAN/GIR.No. 109-T/101 CT 19dated 28/03/2002 for Assessment year 1995-1996. ----- For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenueaggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2012, whereby the learnedTribunal held that for Assessment Year 1995-96 in question,there was no failure on the part of the Assessee and thereforethe proviso to Section 147 of the Act could not be invoked bythe Assessing Authority for reassessment for the Assessment Year1995-96 and therefore the reopening was not justified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The relevant extract from the order of the learnedTribunal is quoted below for ready reference. “6. We have perused the orders and heard the rivalsubmissions. The reasons for reopening are notavailable on record for assessment year 1992-93.Ground assailing the reopening was also not taken bythe assessee before ld. CIT (Appeals). Nevertheless,this being jurisdictional aspect, we are of theopinion that assessee can raise the issue duringappellate proceedings as well. Since facts are to beverified for ascertaining the kind of disclosure madeby the assessee during the course of originalassessment proceedings and consideration thereof bythe Assessing Officer, and such facts including thedate of issue of notice under Section 148 are notavailable, we are of the opinion that the matter hasto go back to ld.CIT (Appeals) for adjudication.However, for assessment year 1995-96, ld.CIT(Appeals)himself has noted that assessee had made the relevantclaims in the statements filed by it before ld.A.O. LdCIT(Appeals) has taken an assumption that AssessingOfficer had not applied his mind on variousinformation furnished by the assessee during thecourse of original assessment proceedings. It is tobe noted that re-assessment proceedings for assessmentyear 1995-96 was initiated after four years from theend of that year and hence proviso to Section 147 ofthe Act applied. In such a situation, re-assessmentproceedings which were initiated merely based onchange of opinion on various claims made by theassessee cannot be upheld. Hon'ble Apex Court in thecase of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561),has held that a reopening done after the end of fouryears from the impugned assessment year cannot be heldas valid unless tangible material was availablejustifying such reopening. We are, therefore of theopinion that ground of the assessee questioning thereopening has to succeed for assessment year 1995-96,whereas, such ground taken by the assessee for 1992-93has to be remitted to ld.CIT(Appeals) forconsideration after collecting necessary facts foradjudication.” 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we aresatisfied that unless the failure on the part of the Assessee ispointed out by the Revenue Authority concerned, the extendedperiod of limitation beyond four years from the end of theAssessment Year, in our opinion, cannot be invoked. No suchfailure on the part of the Assessee has been pointed out in the present case and therefore, while passing the orders on themiscellaneous petition, upon remand by this Court, the learnedTribunal has held that the reassessment initiated after a periodof four years was beyond limitation as far as the AssessmentYear 1995-96 was concerned and therefore, we do not find anyquestion of law to be arising in the present appeal. 4. The appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to bedismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarKSTTo1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I, Tiruchirapalli.+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No. 39167+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No. 39486 CA(CO)GN(18/01/2021) T.C.(A) No.129 of 2013