9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder was framed on 29.12.2006. We are thus respectfully following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) hold that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening of the assessment under sec. 147 of the Act holding the same as void ab initio and consequently the assessment in question as annulled. We thus hold that there is no infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty imposed under sec. 271(1)(c) - whether CIT(Appeals) while deleting the penalty has ignored the fact that assessee had made a wrong cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2009 declaring income of ₹ 5,81,20,574 which was processed under sec. 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed on 29.12.2006 at assessed income of ₹ 6,42,94,200. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noted from the records that the assessee company had paid royalty of ₹ 75,52,343 to M/s. Chancellor Oil Tools, a company incorporated under U.S. Law. The Assessing Officer noted that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal. 4. At the outset of hearing, the learned AR pointed out that the issue raised is fully covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2003-04 vide order dated 14.11.2014 in ITA No.4740/Del/2004, a copy whereof was made available to the Bench and Learned DR. 5. The Learned DR on the other hand submitted that different facts were there before the ITAT for the assessment year 2003-04 as therein, the reassessment proceedings have been held as barred by limitation as per the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act. He submitted that there was no change of opinion but escapement of assessable income was there as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switch Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) CIT vs. Munjal Showa Ltd. (2012) - 19 Taxman.com 39 (Del.). 7. Having considered the above submissions, we find that in the assessment year 2003-04 in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had also shown ₹ 5,02,778 (25% of ₹ 20,11,115) which was to be capitalized in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Hence, it was held escapement of assessable income. The ITAT held that all the three issues including issue of 25% capitalization of the royalty payment raised by the Assessing Officer were dealt with during the original assessment under sec. 143(3) of the Act, hence, it was a clear case of change of opinion, correctly held by the Learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced after issue of notice of reassessment, hence, reassessment was held valid as new information was received by the Assessing Officer. In the case of Shri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material fact necessary for assessment. There is, however, no dispute on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Pan India Ltd. (supra) that information includes information as to relevant judicial decisions. Here also, the facts were different as the decisions of hon ble court had come to the knowledge of the ITO after assessment was framed. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act, 1961 and that the findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals). 12. In support of the ground, the Learned DR has reiterated the penalty order with this submissions that the assessment has escaped with a wrong claim made deliberately by the assessee to evade tax had the scrutiny assessment be not taken in the case. 13. The learned AR, however, pointed out that the penalty in question also does not stand since in between the ITAT in the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2281/Del/2009 vide order dated 29.8.2014 has decided the issue of validity of addition made on account of payment of commission to its directors as not valid in view of the decision of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
