TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the learned Assessing Officer's stand in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant prays that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act may be declared bad in law and reassessment order may please be cancelled. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit any grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal". ITA No. 6971/Mum/2010 : Department Appeal : 4. The following grounds have been taken: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that no expense out of the 'corporate expense' was incurred in relation to STP units claiming deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the 'corporate expenses' con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....office expenses in the Profit and Loss Account presented to the Ld AO. There was absolutely no need to allocate these corporate office expenses over EOU units, since the expenses were incurred at various locations across India which do not have any connection with EOU units of the company which are located at Mahape (ES II & IV), Navi Mumbai office only. Location-wise details of the said corporate expenses of Rs. 20,76,32,766/- are as under:- From the aforesaid break-up of expenses, it is abundantly clear that expenses of Rs. 20,76,32,766/-, which are incurred at various branches of the company all over India, have no connection with the EOU Units located at Mahape, Navi Mumbai. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the AO to re-locate a part of these expenses to the EOU Units of the company on the basis of percentage of the turnover of the company vis-ã-vis the turnover of STP Units. It is further submitted that the expenses of Rs. 20,76,32,766/- also include depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,69,00,000/-. The depreciation costs was for the assets lying in common divisions at various above mentioned locations. The said depreciation can be apportioned over non EO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case in ITA No. 5245/Mum/2010 for assessment year 2005-06, we do not find any reason to deviate or disturb the decisions based on facts, duly examined by the revenue authorities. We, therefore, reject the GOA as filed by the department and as a consequence, we dismiss the appeal as filed by the department. 13. On the other hand, the assessee has taken a solitary ground on legality of the reassessment proceedings that have reached the ITAT. 14. The assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings, initiated after the six year of close of the assessment year. The facts are: Return filed 31.10.2002 143(1) 03.03.2003 148 Notice 03.11.2005 Return in response to 148 14.10.2005 Assessment u/s 143(3)/148 29.12.2006 CIT(A) order on the impugned issue 13.12.2007 Order giving effect to CIT(A) order 25.02.2008 Notice u/s 148 31.03.2009 Return in response to 148 24.04.2009 Asst. u/s 143(3)/148 22.12.2009 15. The assessee has raised twin objections, i.e. notice issued after six years of the assessment year under consideration and initiation of reopening of reassessment proceedings on change of opinion. 16. The DR arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the details filed by the assessee, which were considered not only by the AO but also by the CIT(A), who in the initial proceedings directed the AO to allow the deduction as per law. 22. In the current proceedings also, the revenue authorities examined those vary details to come to a different conclusion. This, in our view, the case would clearly fall within the ratio laid down Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India, reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del-FB), approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that it is essential to have, reason to believe to reopen the proceedings, this fact, we do not find anywhere in the order or notice. This has since been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitara Diamond (P) Ltd vs DCIT reported in 262 CTR 299 (Bom). 24. Another major discrepancy noticed during the course of arguments is that there is no mention of authorization of a higher authority to initiate the current reassessment proceedings. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DSJ Communications vs DCIT, reported in 222 Taxman 129 (Bom), held that approval of CIT is....