The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-1 v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 173 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA-1 Versus GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. ==========================================================Appearance:MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATHandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 11/09/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This tax appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Ahmedabad dated 4[th]October, 2019 in the ITA No.3440/Ahd/2015 for the A.Y.2008-09. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration of this Court; “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in quashing the reassessment notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act and in holding the reassessment order u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act as null and void without going into the merits of the case?” 3.The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara, held as under; “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The limited controversy raised by way of additional ground whereby the Tribunal has been called upon to adjudicate as to whether re-opening under s. 147/148 of the Act is maintainable where tax liability as per book profits computed under s. 115JB of the Act is not disturbed and also exceeds the total income determined as per normal provisions. We find that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) has observed that in the absence of any addition to the tax liability of the assessee computed under s. 115JB of the Act (which exceeds the tax liability under normal provisions), the jurisdiction of the AO is ousted even if the proposed disallowane of expenditure by the AO under normal provisions is sustained. The view expressed in India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was adopted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Motto Tiles (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 280 (Guj).” 4.In view of the above, we see no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5.In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) Vahid