Allowed

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu,Circle 1 and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2022WP/3575/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court held that an income tax notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, barring reopening after four years. The writ petition challenging the notice and the rejection order was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash and set aside the notice dated 15/03/2019 under section 148 and the order dated 25/11/2019 rejecting objections.

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs the Assistant… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1/5 408 WP3575.2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3575 OF 2019

¶4

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited,
Mumbai

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
LTU, Circle 1, Mumbai and ors.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

---

¶10

Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.

¶11

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
 DATED : JANUARY 04, 2022

¶12

P. C. :-

¶13

1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 15/03/2019 issued under

¶14

section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said
Act’) for AY 2012-13 and order dated 25/11/2019 rejecting petitioner’s
objections to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the said Act.

¶15

2.This is a case where the notice has been issued after the expiry
of four years from the relevant assessment year and as the assessment under
section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed, proviso to section 147 of
the Act shall apply. Under section 147, there is a bar in re-opening the
assessment after the expiry of four years where assessment under section
143(3) of the Act has been completed unless there has been failure on the
part of petitioner to truly and fully disclose all material facts required for

¶16

P.H. Jayani

¶17

2/5 408 WP3575.2019.doc

¶18

assessment. The onus is on the respondents to prove that there was such
failure on the part of petitioner.

¶19

3.We have considered the reasons recorded for re-opening and there is a
failure on the part of respondents to even disclose what was the material fact
that petitioner failed to disclose. Using the words “as there is a failure on
the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for
its assessment during the year under consideration” would be of no
assistance to respondents since it is clear that it has been made only as an
attempt to get out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to section 147 of
the Act. In fact, in the order dated 25/11/2019 rejecting the objections

¶20

which is impugned in this petition respondents in fact says that he has not
made out a case of failure on the part of petitioner to disclose. According to
respondent, to confer jurisdiction under Section 147(a), two conditions were
required to be satisfied, firstly, the Assessing Officer must have reasons to
believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax has escaped
assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such
escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part
of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his
assessment of that year. Both these conditions has to be satisfied before the
Assessing Officer could assume jurisdiction for issue of notice under Section
148 read with Section 147(a). But under the substituted Section 147

¶21

P.H. Jayani

¶22

3/5 408 WP3575.2019.doc

¶23

existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words, if the Assessing
Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, that was
enough to confer jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. For this view of the
Assessing Officer, that for issuing notice to reopen assessment, the Assessing
Officer must only be satisfied that he had reasons to believe that income,
profits and gains chargeable to income tax has escaped assessment and the
second condition that such escapement has occurred by reason of either
omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all
material facts necessary for his assessment is not required, Mr. Suresh Kumar
in fairness agreed that that view of the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Mr.
Suresh Kumar, as an Officer of the Court, agreed that both these are
preconditions which are required to be fulfilled when assessment is sought to
be reopened after four years. A Division Bench of this Court in Sesa Goa
Limited V/s. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.1has held :-

¶24

“ The power to reopen an assessment is not unbridled or unrestricted. The power is subject to the proviso embodied in the section itself. The proviso prescribes restrictions on the power of reopening the assessment by limiting the time period to four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee …….. to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the income for that assessment year”. ………….. Section 147 of the Act is the source of power of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment. Section 148 contains procedural restrictions for issuance of a notice for exercise of the power of reopening of an assessment conferred under Section 147. Section 149 prescribes the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148. In our opinion, the conditions laid down under Section 147 of the Act for the purposes of reopening the assessment must be satisfied before the

¶25

1 (2007) 294 ITR 101 (Bom)

¶26

P.H. Jayani

¶27

4/5 408 WP3575.2019.doc

¶28

notice can be issued. The conditions laid down in Section 147 are
the jurisdictional facts necessary for the purpose of exercise of the
power under Section 147. The jurisdictional facts prescribed
under section147 must exist before a notice under section 148 can
be issued. …….. In other words, if the basic jurisdictional facts
required for reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the
Act do not exist it would not be competent for the Assessing
Officer to issue a notice under Section 148. Even where the
jurisdictional facts prescribed under Section 147 exist and all
conditions laid down under Section 147 and the proviso thereto
are satisfied, the notice under Section 148 can be issued only after
the Assessing Officer has recorded his reasons for doing so under
Sub-section (2) of Section 148 and has further obtained the
necessary sanction for issuance of the notice as required under
Section 151 of the Act. ….. The restriction …….. of a period of
four years, …….

¶29

In the present case, the reasons which have been recorded by the
Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment do not disclose
that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material
facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. No doubt in the last
paragraph of the reasons, the first respondent has stated :

¶30

I am satisfied that due to furnishing the false particulars of the income by way of incorrect certificate which means failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for the assessment income of Rs.6,10,10,272 had escaped assessment.

¶31

The said statement is clearly made only an attempt to take the
case out of the restriction imposed by the proviso to Section 147
of the Act. ”

¶32

4. Paragraph 2.1 of the reasons recorded for re-opening assessment reads

¶33

as under :-

¶34

“ 2.1 It is seen that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s
35AD amounting to Rs.189,76,44,660/- relating to the
expenditure capitalized in respect of Ammonia Plant at Thal
which was revamped and commissioned in April 2012. It
was seen that during the scrutiny assessment the assessee
was allowed to claim the entire deduction without
examining the conditions stipulated in the provision as the
assessee was not eligible to claim the same since the

¶35

P.H. Jayani

¶36

5/5 408 WP3575.2019.doc

¶37

operations had not commenced during the previous year
2011-12. This irregular claim and allowance of deduction to
the extent of Rs.189.76 crore needs to be examined. ”

¶38

5.Therefore, it is quite obvious that there is nothing but change of
opinion which is not permissible as held in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd v/s.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai and ors2.
In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the notice dated 15/03/2019
under section 148 of the Act is issued without jurisdiction and requires to be
set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 25/11/2019 impugned in the
petition also requires to be set-aside.

¶39

6. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under :-

¶40

“ a. to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof, quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 15^th March 2019 (Exhibit “H”) issued by Respondent No.1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 as well as the impugned order dated 25^th November 2019 (Exhibit “R”) rejecting the Petitioner’s objections for the assessment year 2012-13; ”

¶41

7. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.

¶42

(R.N. LADDHA, J.)

¶43

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶44

2 Writ Petition No.2814 of 2019 dated 14/09/2021

¶45

P.H. Jayani

¶46

PREETI Digitally signedby PREETI H H JAYANIDate: 2022.01.10 JAYANI 12:34:42 +0530

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu,Circle 1 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu,Circle 1 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Director of Income - Tax Vs the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Muimbai Special Bench B ,Mum and Anr.

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs National Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 4 Ors.

Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar Vs National e-Assessment Centre(NeAC) and 4 Ors.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(2)(1) and 2 Ors.

Stci Finance Ltd. (Formerly Known as Securities Trading Corporation of India Ltd) Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1) and Anr.

S. a. Developers Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 26 (3), Mumbai and 2 Ors.