Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Gsl Nova Petrochemicals ... on 7 June, 2017

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav

                 O/TAXAP/354/2017                                               ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                TAX APPEAL NO. 354 of 2017

         ==========================================================
              PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
                   GSL NOVA PETROCHEMICALS LTD....Opponent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                     Date : 07/06/2017


                                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging  the   judgment   of   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal  ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 07.06.2016.   In the  appeal,   following   question   is   presented   for   our  consideration.

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law  and   on   fact   by   quashing   the   issuance   of   notice  u/s.148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer?"

2. The   issue   pertains   to   reopening   of   assessment  which the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal did  not   permit.     The   notice   for   reopening   was   issued  Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:51:59 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/354/2017 ORDER beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant  assessment year.  For doing so, the Assessing Officer  had recorded following reasons:

"The   assessee   company   had   filed   return   on  01.11.2004   showing   total   loss   at   Rs.  9,59,87,357/­.     The   assessment   u/s.   143(3)  was   finalized   on   29.12.2006,   determining  total income at Rs.Nil.
2. On   verification   of   records,   it   is   seen  that during the course of original assessment  proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed  depreciation   on   captive   power   plant   at   an  amount   of   Rs.63,66,750/­.     However,   in   the  order   passed   u/s.   143(3)   of   the   Act,   the  Assessing   Officer   has   given   excess  depreciation   of   Rs.2,09,56,984/­.     This  figure   has   been   worked   out,   based   on   the  figure   of   depreciation   to   be   allowed,   which  was   mentioned   by   Assessing   Officer   at   the  time of working out disallowance, at para 4.3  of the assessment order in respect of various  assets.   The working of excess depreciation,  allowed by the Assessing Officer, is as under 
:­ Date of purchase of asset Name of Rate of 1st Half 2nd Half Depreciatio Depreciati Excess asset depreci n allowable on allowed depreciation ation in asst, order Factory 10% 5894517 41808447 2679874 4475571 1795696 building power Pipe 25% 2920964 6030261 1484024 1872686 388662 fittings Plant & 25% 21764331 148872479 24050143 39938661 15888519 machinery Electrical 25% 23888614 46961459 11842335 14726442 2884107 installation s Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:51:59 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/354/2017 ORDER Total excess depredation allowed Rs.20956984 The   excess   depreciation   allowed,   as   worked  but above, is required to be withdrawn. 

3. Further,   it   is   also   seen   that   the  interest expenses claimed by assessee include  interest   payment   to   LBBW,   amounting   to   Rs.41,27,287/­,   which   has   been   incurred   as  expenditure in foreign currency, on which no  TDS   has   been   made.     Hence,   this   expenditure  was required to be disallowed as the assessee  has   not   complied   with   the   provisions   of  Section 195 of the Act.  

4. Hence,   I   have   reason   to   believe   that  income   chargeable   to   tax   has   escaped  assessment in the form of under­assessment of  income   within   the   meaning   as   envisaged   by  section 147 r.w explanation 2(c)(i) & (iv) of  the Act.  

Hence notice u/s148 is issued accordingly." 

3. While confirming the view of the Commissioner of  Income   Tax   (Appeals)   and   rejecting   the   Revenue's  appeal, the Tribunal on the question of reopening of  the   assessment   was   of   the   view   that   there   was   no  failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully  and truly all material facts.  In fact, the Assessing  Officer had not even so alleged. The Tribunal observed  as under:

"As   observed   earlier,   the   interdiction  provided   in   the   proviso   appended   to   section  147   of   the   Income   Tax   puts   an   embargo   upon  Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:51:59 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/354/2017 ORDER the   powers   of   the   AO   to   issue   notice   under  section  148 of the Income  Tax Act,  in cases  where, the original assessment was made under  section   143(3)   and   four   years   have   expired.  The   AO   has   been   denuded   from   his   powers   to  issue   notice   in   such   cases   unless   it   is  established that income chargeable to tax has  escaped the assessment on account of failure  of the assessee to disclose all the material  facts   fully   and   truly   in   respect   of   its  income.     The   AO   has   nowhere   alleged   any  failure   of   the   assessee.     The   ld.CIT(A)   has  rightly appreciated the facts.  We do not see   any reason to  interfere in the order of the  ld.CIT(A)   on   this   issue.     Accordingly,   the  appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 

4. We find no error in the view of the Tribunal. The  perusal of the reasons would suggest that according to  the   Assessing   Officer,   there   were   two   heads,   under  which,  income   chargeable   to   tax   had   escaped  assessment.  One was of ground of excess deduction by  the Assessing Officer during the original assessment  and the another was of non disallowance of expenditure  paid   to   a   foreign   company   without   deducting   tax   at  source.     With   respect   to   the   first   ground,   the  Assessing Officer himself in the reasons had recorded  that it was on verification of records that the said  ground   that   they   imparted,   clearly   eliminating   any  possibility of the assessee having not disclosed true  facts.  Perusal of the reasons would further show that  Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:51:59 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/354/2017 ORDER if at all it was an error of the Assessing Officer to  have granted larger relief than what was available to  the assessee.  On the second ground of payment without  deducting tax at source, there is nothing to suggest  that there was any failure on the part of the assessee  to disclose truly and fully all material facts.  

5. Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.     

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) ANKIT Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:51:59 IST 2017