Wp/88/2020 Of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai And 2 Ors

Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2022.01.1311:59:52+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2020 Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.…Respondents ---- Mr. Jitendra Jain i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED : 11[th] JANUARY, 2022 P.C. : 1.Petitioner is impugning the notice dated 30[th] March, 2019issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for theAssessment Year 2012-13 and the order dated 14[th] October, 2019 rejectingpetitioner’s objections. 2.The notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued morethan four years after relevant Assessment Year where assessment has beencompleted under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, proviso to Section147 of the Act shall apply and the onus is on respondents to show that therewas failure on the part of petitioner to truly and fully disclose material factsat the time of assessment. Having considered the reasons recorded for re-opening, in our view respondent has not made out any case of failure todisclose on the part of petitioner. The entire basis for re-opening is changeof opinion. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is relying on the same set of documents based on which the assessment order has already beenpassed. According to JAO in Note 30 (Exceptional Items) of the Profit andLoss Account an amount of Rs.180.95 Crores was credited on account ofLicense Agreement Termination Compensation. While computing incomefor tax purpose petitioner considered this income under the head Long TermCapital Gains which was taxable at the rate of 20%. But according to JAOtermination of contract was normal incident in business and hence thereceipt was revenue in nature. According to JAO, the entire receipt wasrequired to be assessed under the head Business Income instead of CapitalGains. This itself clearly indicates that the proposed assessment is based onchange of opinion which is held in various judgments of various courtsincluding this court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court is not permissible. 3.In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause – (a) which reads as under : (a) this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ ofCertiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s caseand after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and setaside the notice dated 30[th] March 2019 (Exhibit “A”) issued byRespondents under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen theassessment for the assessment year 2012-13; and order rejectingobjections (Exhibit “V”) dated 14[th] October, 2019. 4.Petition disposed with no order as to costs. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)