The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. V.daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1657 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax V. v.Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajit Shah with Shrihari Iyer for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue for Assessment Year 1995-96following questions have been raised for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for his assessment when the material facts were neither submitted in return or accompanying documents and not in the documents submitted during the course of the assessment, despite the specific query of A.O. for the same? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding the reopening of the case u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years is bad in law relying on the documents not submitted during the course of the regular assessment proceedings for that assessment year and for the purpose other than the assessment proceedings? 2)The assessment for assessment year 1995-96 was admittedly completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 9/2/1998. The notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26/3/2002 beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The basis for reopening the assessment was alleged failure on the part of the respondent assessee to disclose the facts with regard to shares being allotted to M/s. Daimler Benz in consideration of technical knowhow provided by them. Thus resulting in excess benefit of Section 35AB of the said Act being availed by the assessee. The objection of the revenue is that the documents viz. Copies of agreements were not furnished and thus there was a failure to disclose all material facts. 3)The Tribunal by the impugned order has upheld the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that all facts with regard to allotment of shares to M/s. Daimler Benz in consideration of technical knowhow was disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing officer by its letter dated 20/3/1995 during the course of assessment. In fact the Tribunal records a finding of fact that all primary facts were disclosed during the course of assessment proceedings and thus reopening beyond a period of four years is not warranted. In fact, the assessment was framed subsequently on 9/2/1998. 4)In the above circumstances, two authorities i.e. CIT(A) and the Tribunal have come to a concurrent finding of fact that all material facts necessary for assessment have been disclosed by the assessee during the course of original proceedings. Thus, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 5)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)