Bombay High Court
Piramal Enterprises Limited(Formerly ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 18 January, 2024
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:1056-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI 1/3 224-oswp-754-2016.doc
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.01.19
18:06:08
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2016
Piramal Enterprises Limited (Formerly, Piramal
Phytocare Ltd.) ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle
7(3)(2) and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Madhur Agrawal, i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Petitioners.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED: 18th January 2024
PC:-
1. On 6th April 2016, the following order came to be passed:
"1. Heard. Rule.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Notice dated 15th January, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10. The reasons in support of the notice indicate failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the approvals granted by the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), Government of India as required under the Act and the Rules for claiming deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. Moreover, it also adverts to the information received by the Assessing Officer that the name of the petitioner company does not find mention in the list of assessees accorded approval under section 35(2AB) of the Act by the DSIR in its Annual Report for the period 2008-09.
3. So far as reliance upon the Annual Report of DSIR for the year 2008-09 is concerned, the petitioner has pointed out that its Research Division, which was granted approval was earlier a Division of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and in the relevant Assessment Year 2008-09, de-merged into petitioners' company consequent to the order of this Court dated 25th November, 2011. This resulted in recognition granted earlier to the Research Division as a part of the Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. would Shivgan ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2024 03:36:40 ::: 2/3 224-oswp-754-2016.doc continue to the benefit of the Research Division as a part of the petitioner. Moreover, the applications for recognition of this Research Division was granted by the DSIR for the earlier years as well as for the subsequent years.
4. In any event, we find that the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was a subject matter for consideration during regular assessment proceedings.
5. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings leading to the order dated 29th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner had along with its submissions dated 18th November, 2011 filed a copy of the approval dated 19th November, 2009 received from DSIR for the period 1 st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2011 recognising its R & D Division. The same was duly considered by the Assessing Officer and no objection with regard to it not being in prescribed proforma or signed by the Secretary of DSIR was taken by the Assessing Officer. It appears he was satisfied with the evidence produced on examination as is evident from paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Assessment Order dated 29th December, 2011. Thus, prima facie, this is a case of change of opinion.
6. Therefore, prima facie, the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice is lacking. In that view, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d)."
2 We have also considered, with the assistance of the counsel, the petition, reply and rejoinder, etc. as also the reasons recorded for reopening, a copy whereof is at Exhibit H to the petition. We are in agreement with the observations made at the time of admission that the reopening notice is based on mere change of opinion. Moreover, the reasons do not indicate any failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly any material facts relevant for assessment in the subject assessment year.
3. In the circumstances, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under:
Shivgan ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2024 03:36:40 ::: 3/3 224-oswp-754-2016.doc "(a) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof, quash and set aside the Impugned Notice dated 15th January 2015 and the Impugned Order dated 2nd February 2016 for the assessment year 2009-10."
(DR.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2024 03:36:40 :::