Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The reasons are in respect of several assessment years, namely, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, we are, in this petition, concerned only with the assessment year 2000-01. Two reasons have been set out in the said document. Reason one pertains to the non-eligibility of deduction under Section 80IA in respect of the steam turbine of the combined cycle gas power stations belonging to the petitioner. The second reason pertains to the taxability of income tax recoverable by NTPC from the State Electricity Boards'. We shall deal with these purported reasons in greater detail later. For the present, it would be necessary to set out in brief the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned notice dated 03.02.2006. According to the petitioner, the notice is barred by limitation inasmuch as it has been issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, 2000-01 is the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the four-year period would have ended on 31.03.2005. The notice which is impugned in this petition has been issued on 03.02.2006. This is clearly beyond the period of four years. The only way in which this notice can be saved is if the factual position falls within the parameters specified under the proviso to Section 147 of the said Act.

13. The petitioner sent a response on 27.04.2005 to the inspection report and stated that there are no fresh facts in the report and that, in any event, the ITAT's order was applicable. The petitioner also submitted that mere dependence of one unit on the other did not mean that the steam undertaking was not an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80IA of the said Act.

14. In the meanwhile, on 20.10.2004, the respondent No.1 applied to the Committee on Disputes for permission to file an appeal from the Tribunal's said order to this Court under Section 260A of the said Act. During the pendency of the application for permission to file an appeal, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal before this Court being ITA 756/2004. However, by an order dated 03.12.2004, this Court disposed of that appeal on the ground that since the High Powered Committee on Disputes had not granted permission till then, this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition at that stage. This Court, however, directed that it would be open to the revenue to apply for re- filing of the appeal after the clearance is given by the High Powered Committee in favour of the revenue. The clearance was not given inasmuch as, on 08.06.2005, the Committee on Disputes rejected the application of the revenue. The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting pertaining to the petitioner are as under:-

23. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this was a case of change of opinion which was also not a permissible ground for re- opening an assessment already completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act. It was contended that in the course of the regular assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, the Assessing Officer had taken the view that the undertakings, though separate, were integrated and that the expenses should be apportioned to the steam undertaking so as to reduce the Section 80IA deduction. In contrast, it has now been suggested by the Assessing Officer on the very same basis that the undertakings are integrated to allow deduction under Section 80IA by clubbing the profits of steam and gas undertakings. This was clearly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case of change of opinion which is impermissible in law. He placed reliance on the following decisions:-

26. Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, submitted that this was a case in which the proviso to Section 147 was attracted. She submitted that insofar as the assessment order 1998-99 is concerned, the Assessing Officer had considered the question of the two units, namely, the gas turbine unit and the steam turbine unit not from the standpoint of whether they were integrated or they were separate units, but only in the context of the fuel cost argument. The learned senior counsel submitted that the examination was not whether the units by themselves or as a whole were entitled to deduction under Section 80IA or not but from the angle of what would be the fuel cost of the steam unit, insofar as the hot waste gases were concerned. It was only the question of allocation of fuel cost which was considered by the Assessing Officer and the question of units being separate or integrated was not specifically examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no question of there being any change of opinion. She also submitted that the impugned notice dated 03.02.2006 was necessitated because of the inspection report of September, 2004. According to her, the said inspection report brought out fresh factual material to indicate that the gas turbine unit and the steam turbine unit were an integrated whole industrial undertaking and were not separate industrial undertakings or units. According to her, the inspection report threw light on the question as to whether the steam unit was merely an expansion of the gas unit or was an altogether separate unit. According to her, the report clearly indicated that the steam unit was entirely dependent on the gas unit and was, therefore, integrated with the gas unit and did not have an independent existence. According to her, this fact was not known to the Assessing Officer when he concluded the assessments for the assessment year 1998-99 or even for the assessment year 2000-01. She submitted that this was also not disclosed by the petitioner and, therefore, there was failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose the material facts. As such, one of the conditions of the proviso to Section 147 got triggered. She submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' order in respect of the relevant assessment year as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders in respect of the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were before the inspection of September, 2004. Moreover, insofar as the opinion of the Committee on Disputes is concerned, the issue before it was only with regard to the allocation of fuel cost between the two units. She submitted that the issue whether the two units were separate or integrated was not before the Committee on Disputes and, therefore, it would be wrong to say that the latter issue had attained finality. According to her, the only issue that had attained finality was with regard to the allocation of fuel cost and not the question of whether the two units were separate or integrated. She also referred to the assessment order as well as the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2004-05, copies of which were handed over to us in the course of arguments, to submit that in the earlier round the issue was with regard to fuel cost, whereas in the assessment year 2004-05, the issue was whether the two units were independent or one integrated unit. She also referred to the Committee on Disputes' opinion pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 which granted permission for appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, according to her, it was an entirely new issue which had not been examined in the earlier round of assessment and, therefore, there was no question of change of opinion. She also submitted that the fresh examination was necessitated because of the new facts which were revealed in the inspection report of September, 2004 which ought to have been brought to the notice and disclosed by the petitioner at the time of the original assessment but the petitioner had failed to disclose the same. Consequently, she submitted that the ingredients of the proviso to Section 147 of the said Act were clearly satisfied and, therefore, the impugned notice dated 03.02.2006 was not without jurisdiction and was also within time.