TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act), is directed against the order dated 26.12.2018 made in ITA.No.1836/Chny/2017 the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of assessment made under Section 147 is bad in law on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which are necessary for passing the assessment order ? And ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee at Rs. 3,80,25,24,600/-. 7. The Assessing Officer opined that certain assets such as land and building had not been transferred and that there was no separate undertaking called CCP Division, but only an activity existed, which was transferred and therefore, the same was treated as business profit under Section 28 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 3,80,25,24,600/-, which was treated as capital gains by the assessee, as a business income. The Assessing Officer further noticed that for the financial year 2007-08, the assessee made provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 82,47,61,000/- and utilized a sum of Rs. 54,94,74,000/- and out of the un-utilized amount of Rs. 27,52,87,000/-, a sum of Rs. 4,52,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs. Foramer France [reported in (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC)] and (ii) CIT Vs. Elgi Finance Ltd. [reported in (2006) 286 ITR 674 (Madras)]. 11. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by passing the following order : "We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The fact remains that the re-assessment notice was issued after completion of scrutiny assessment, that too after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (2008-09). As per Proviso to Section 147, where the assessment under Sub-Section 3 of Section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under Section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejudice. 14. We have carefully considered the said submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 15. An order passed by a Court or a Tribunal should stand or fall based on the reasons contained in that order. The order cannot be substituted by reasons at the appellate stage when the same did not find place in the original order. This legal principle has been well explained in the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner [reported in AIR 1978 SC 851]. 16. Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee submits that even the order passed by the CIT(A) is not a reasoned order so far as the aspect of reopening of assessment was con....