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 0]

Bombay High Court

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Muller And Phipps (India) Ltd on 4 March, 2019

Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S. Sanklecha

                                                                                             8. os itxa 1712-16.doc

R.M. AMBERKAR
 (Private Secretary)
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                                O.O.C.J.

                                     INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2016


                       Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2                             .. Appellant

                                         Versus
                       Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd                                  .. Respondent

                                                 ...................
                        Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
                                                             ...................

                                                    CORAM          : AKIL KURESHI &
                                                                      M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
                                                     DATE        :    MARCH 4, 2019.

                       P.C.:

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), challenges the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal"

for short).

2. This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2001-02.

3. The Revenue urges following question for our consideration:-

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that reopening of the case is invalid and consequent reassessment is also illegal?"

1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 07:34:55 :::

8. os itxa 1712-16.doc

4. The impugned order of the Tribunal has found one fact that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment for the subject assessment year was not served upon the respondent before passing the reassessment order. In the above view, the impugned order allowed the respondent assessee's appeal by relying upon the decision of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchaar Nigam Ltd1.

5. In the above view, in absence of the above findings of fact found by the Tribunal being shown to be perverse, it has to be accepted. On the above facts, in law, the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in case of Videsh Sanchar Nighar Ltd (supra). Thus the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ] 1 340 ITR 66 (Bom) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 07:34:55 :::