Wp/2934/2018 Of Procter And Gamble Hygiene And Health Care Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 And 2 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2934 OF 2018 Procter & Gamble Hygiene HealthCare Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondent Mr. Madhur Agarwal a/w. Mr. Balasaheb Yewale I/b Rajesh Shah & Co.for the petitioner Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 17[th] JANUARY, 2019 1.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6[th] March, 2018passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short)rejecting petitioner's application for rectification of its earlier orderdated 26[th] May, 2017. 2.The petitioner had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 inwhich one of the claims was deduction under Section 80IB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in relation to an IndustrialUnit claimed to have been newly established by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accepted the claim, upon which the Commissionertook the order in revision under Section 263 of the Act and passed anorder requiring the Assessing Officer to re-examine the entire issue.Against such order of revision, the petitioner had preferred an appealbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal was largely satisfied that it was amere remand of issue before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, nocase for interference was made out. In the process, however, theTribunal in the order dated 26[th] May, 2017 has made certainobservations, which according to the petitioner, would prima faciesuggest that the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Commissioner thatthe petitioner had not established a new Industrial undertaking. Thepetitioner had therefore filed a rectification application which as notedabove, was dismissed by the impugned order. 3.Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perusedthe documents on record, we do not think either the Commissioner orthe Tribunal intended to make any final conclusive observations withrespect to the petitioner's claim. It is, therefore, clarified that theAssessing Officer would decide the entire issue on the basis of materialthat may be brought to record, unmindful of any of the observations ofthe Commissioner or Tribunal. 4.The petition is disposed of accordingly. 5.Nothing stated in the order would prevent the petitioner frompursuing its Income Tax Appeal against the base order of the Tribunal. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)