Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
" C" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before Shri MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
and Shri A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.A.No.91/Ahd/2010
in
I.T.A. No.3145 / Ahd/2003 & C.O.
No.174/Ahd/2004
(Assessment year 1995-96)
ACIT, Circle 8, Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals
Ahmedbaad Ltd., Torrent House,
Nr. Dinesh Hall,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad
PAN/GIR No. : 31069CY4175
(APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by: Shri B L Yadav, Sr. DR
Respondent by: Shri S N Soparkar &
Shri P M Mehta, Adv.
Date of hearing: 25.11.2011
Date of pronouncement: 21.12.2011
ORDER
PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:-
This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue and it was contended in the miscellaneous application that as per the impugned tribunal order, the tribunal has quashed the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 by stating that no addition was made on the reasons recoded for reopening of assessment. It was submitted in the miscellaneous application that as per Explanation (3) to Section 147, the A.O. can make addition in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 2 M.A.No. 91/Ahd/2010 147 even if the reason for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of Section 148. It is also contended in the miscellaneous application that as per the judgment of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of B T Patil and Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT in I.T.A.No. 1408, 1409/Pune/2003, it was decided by the tribunal that the law governing the issue as standing on the date of passing the order has to be applied.
2. Ld. D.R. of the revenue reiterated the same contention, which is raised in the miscellaneous application. In reply, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that it is noted by the tribunal in para 6 of the impugned tribunal order that the A.O. can assess other income which escaped assessment and which was noted by him during the course of reassessment along with income, which has escaped assessment for the reason to believe to be recorded u/s 148(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the tribunal has also noted that this view finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Shri Ram Singh as reported in 306 ITR 343 and on this basis, the tribunal had quashed the reassessment proceedings and nothing has been shown by the revenue that how, this judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is not applicable.
3. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways as reported in 331 ITR 236, wherein it was held that the A.O. can also assess other income not referred to nor in reassessment but only if income referred in notice of reassessment has been assessed. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs CIT as reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del.) wherein also 3 M.A.No. 91/Ahd/2010 similar views are taken that items of income said to have been escaped assessment on which reassessment are proposed not added but other deduction reduced, it was held that this is not permissible.
4. We have considered the rival submissions perused the material on record. We find that in the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal is in line with the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Ram Singh (supra) and nothing has been produced before us to show that this judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is not applicable and how it is an apparent mistake in the tribunal order on following this decision and decided the matter as per the Tribunal order. Other two judgments cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High court are also on similar lines. In the miscellaneous application, the revenue has cited the decision of Special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of B T Patel & Sons and Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT but since the view taken by the Tribunal is as per the judgement of various High Courts, we are of the considered opinion that there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order.
5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is dismissed.
6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
Sd./- Sd./- (MUKUL KUAMR SHRAWAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sp 4 M.A.No. 91/Ahd/2010 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT Concerned 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, Ahmedabad By order 6. The Guard File AR,ITAT,Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation......19/12.
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member......21/12....Other Member ............
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 21/12
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement ......21/12
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.21/12
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ...21/12/2011
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .......................
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order .........................
9. Date of Despatch of the order. .......................