Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It) ... vs American Express Bank Limited, Mumbai on 30 May, 2018
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई " ए" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"A"Bench Mumbai सव ी महावीर सह, याियक सद य एवं राजे , लेखा सद य Before S/Shri Mahavir Singh,Judicial Member and Rajendra,Accountant Member िविवध आवेदन सं / MA No.67/Mum/2017 (Arising out of आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.1064/Mum/2014) िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year-2005-06) DCIT-(Intl. Taxation)-1(1) M/s. American Express Bank Ltd. 1st Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Estate C/o. SRBC and Associates Mumbai-400 038. Vs. 6th Floor, Express Towers Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
PAN:AABCA 0588 K
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Shri Virendra Singh-DR
Assessee by: Shri Nishant Thakkar/
Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 25/05/2018
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 30.05.2018 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम क धारा 254(1) के अ तग त आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद य, सद य राजे के अनुसार ार /PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Vide its application,dated 14/02/2017,the Assessing Officer(AO)has stated that there was certain mistakes in the order of the Tribunal,dated 31/5/16, that same were to be rectified as per provisions of section 254(2) of the Act,that the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act,that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year the case was reopened u/s.147 by issuance of notice u/s. 148, that the assessee objected to reopening referring to proviso to section 147of the Act. However, the AO rejected the objection and proposed an addition of Rs.58.86 crores to the income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act.
2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee challenged the validity of the reopening before the DRP on the ground that amendment was brought in statute as such after the filing of return of income and post completion of assessment with retrospective effect, that there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment.The DRP relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, delivered in the case of K.Mohan and Co. (ITA No.1263 of 2011 and ITA No.2347 of 2010) held that legislative amendment brought with retrospective effect could not be a valid ground MA No.67/M/17-M/s. American Express Bank Ltd.
for the reopening the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) after the expiry of period of four years.The Tribunal referring to the judgment of K Mohan and Co. (supra) upheld the order of the DRP and dismissed appeal filed by the AO.
3.During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative (DR) stated that DRP should not have held that assessment was bad in law, that DRP could enhance or reduce the proposed addition.The Authorised Representative (AR) contended that there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
4.We have heard the rival submissions.We find that the AO had initiated reassessment proceedings in light of retrospective amendment made to section 115 JB,that the original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act,that at the time of filing of return,the assessee had rightly computed the book profit,that the DRP following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose necessary facts,that the Tribunal upheld the order of the DRP. We hold that the DRP had not committed any mistake in following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.If the assessment itself was against the provisions of the Act, it was the duty of the DRP to give relief to the assessee.The Tribunal has endorsed the views of the DRP.It is a simple case where validity of reopening had to be examined.It is not disputed that addition was proposed on the basis of retrospective amendment.The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of K Mohan & Co. has specifically dealt with the issue of computation of income under the MAT provisions.The DRP and Tribunal has followed the judgment. Therefore,we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
As a result,MA filed by AO stands dismissed.
फलतः िनधा रती अिधकारी ारा दािखल कया गया िविवध आवदेन प नामंजूर कया जाता है Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2018. आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 30 मई, 2018 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
महावीर सह / Mahavir Singh)
(महावीर (राजे
/ Rajendra)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद
य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक/Dated : 30.05.2018.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ 2. Respondent / यथ 2 MA No.67/M/17-M/s. American Express Bank Ltd.
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब अपीलीय आयकर आयु , 4.The concerned CIT /संब आयकर आयु
5.DR "A " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स यािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
3