Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Writ Petition No. 2966 of 2012 challenges the legality and validity of the impugned Notice dated 26 th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act for AY 2014-15. Consequently, the Petitioner also challenges the impugned orders dated 25th November 2021 and 14th February 2022 rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioner to the validity of the impugned Notice dated 26th March 2021. So far as the impugned Notice dated 26 th March 2021 (Relating to AY 2014-15) is concerned, not only was the assessment proceeding sought to be reopened on the ground that the Petitioner had incorrectly claimed exemption under Section 10(34) in relation to the monies received from the BPCL Trust, but also that the Assessee had wrongly claimed a deduction under Section 32AC. In other words, for AY 2014-15, the assessment was sought to be reopened on 2 counts. Here also the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that income of the Assessee (the Petitioner) had escaped assessment because of a failure on the JULY 3, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 12-1752-2022-WP-C-F-Jud=.docx part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of that year.

32. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that the impugned Notice dated 23rd March 2021 and the impugned order dated 17 th February 2022 are unsustainable and hence, deserve to be quashed and set aside. WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2022

33. As mentioned earlier, so far as this Writ Petition is concerned, the reasons for reopening the assessment for AY 2014-15 were not only with relation to the exemption claimed for the income received from the BPCL Trust but also that the Assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.316,42,70,532/- under Section 32AC of the IT Act, out of which Rs.127,39,45,494/- was incorrectly availed. This is an additional ground, on which the assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 were sought to be reopened by the impugned Notice dated 26 th March 2021. So far as the reasons for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 in relation to the income received from the BPCL Trust are concerned, it is common ground before us that the facts are almost identical as in relation to AY 2013-14 and which has been dealt with by us earlier. Hence, in this Writ Petition all we JULY 3, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 12-1752-2022-WP-C-F-Jud=.docx have to consider is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment on the ground that the Petitioner had wrongly claimed a deduction under Section 32AC of the IT Act in the sum of Rs. 127,39,45,494/-. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then, naturally the impugned Notice and the impugned order would be sustainable notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for reopening the assessment on the ground of wrongly claiming the exemption for income received from the BPCL Trust is unsustainable. This is because a reopening Notice can be sustained on any ground mentioned in the reasons for issuance of the Notice. We must mention here that for this assessment year also the first proviso to Section 147 of the IT Act would be attracted, namely, that the reassessment proceedings have to be initiated because there has been an escapement of income on account of the failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts in relation to this assessment year.

"3.1 From the accounts of the assessee it is seen that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35AC of the Act of Rs.316,42,70,532/-. In this regard it is to state that the Investment Allowance was introduced for manufacturing sector by the Finance Act, 2013 by inserting section 32AC of the Act which allowed investment allowance of 15% for investment of more than 100 crores in plant and machinery during the period from 01-04-2013 to 31-03-2015. Conditions to be fulfilled for availing the benefit are specified in sub-section (1) of section 32AC of the Act. The tax benefits under this scheme can be availed by an assessee, being a company, engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. Deduction under section 32AC (1) of the Act, available under this scheme, if actual cost of new assets acquired and installed during financial year 2014-15 exceeds Rs.25 crores and actual cost of new assets acquired and installed during the period 01-04-2013 to 31-03-2015 exceeds Rs. 100 crores.

(emphasis supplied)

35. As can be seen from the aforesaid reproduction, the Assessing Officer, in fact, refers to the Submission dated 7 th December 2016 which was given by the Petitioner - Assessee to the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. This submission, in fact, categorically draws the attention of the Assessing Officer to investment allowance under Section 32AC of the Act. It is specifically stated by the Assessee that Investment allowance has been claimed on assets acquired and installed during the Finance Year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15. The total JULY 3, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 12-1752-2022-WP-C-F-Jud=.docx value of the eligible assets is mentioned as Rs. 2109.51 crores on which investment allowance @ 15% is claimed of Rs.316.42 crores. The details of the assets acquired and installed [more than Rs. 10 lakhs] was also enclosed with the aforesaid submission as Annexure-4. Annexure 4 can be found starting at page 221 of the paper book, and so far as the LPG Cylinders are concerned, the relevant portion is at page 234. In fact, this is the very Annexure [in the submission], that the 1st Respondent, in the reasons for reopening the assessment, has referred to for denying the claim under Section 32AC to the extent of Rs.127.39 crores, on the basis that LPG Cylinders and LPG Pressure Regulators did not qualify as 'plant and machinery' eligible to claim a deduction under Section 32AC of the Act. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the reasons, the Assessing Officer states that taking into consideration "....... the data in the Return of Income, the data from the assessment records......" and having applied his mind to it, he was of the view that total income of Rs.201.59 crores consisting of the income from the BPCL Trust of Rs.74.20 crores and 127.39 crores (originally claimed as deduction under Section 32AC) had escaped assessment for the AY 2014-15 due to the Assessee failing to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year. Apart from this bald assertion, nothing else is mentioned in the reasons. What fact has not been disclosed is also not mentioned. In fact, from seeing the reasons, we find that the Assessing Officer, after relying upon JULY 3, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 12-1752-2022-WP-C-F-Jud=.docx the data already furnished by the Assessee during the original scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3), comes to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Once this is the case, we are clearly of the view that even so far as the reasons for reopening the assessment for AY 2014-15 on the ground of the Assessee allegedly claiming a wrong deduction under Section 32AC, is without jurisdiction as there is no failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in relation to the deduction claimed under Section 32AC for AY 2014-15. In fact, on perusing the reasons, it is clear that this is nothing but a "change of opinion" of a subsequent Assessing Officer, who now seeks to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15. This is wholly impermissible in law. In these circumstances, we find that even so far as Writ Petition No. 2966 of 2022 is concerned, the same deserves to be allowed.