TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discussion about the reasons for which the case has been reopened now in the original assessment order; while examining the intangible assets, the assessing officer, has examined the issue of non-compete fee alone which was taken into consideration in the order as well while the other components had been overlooked. Hence it cannot be said that an opinion has been formed in this regard which may amount to change of opinion. Therefore, the case laws quoted by the assessee are neither relevant nor applicable in this when there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no details were called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings. Hence there is no question of change of opinion. This point of view is ascertained by the decisions in the following cases - A.L.A. Firms Vs. CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622, Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs.CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856, and EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (All) 30 DTR 82. In the case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....some material for the assessment embedded in the evidence which the revenue could have uncovered but did not do so, it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority. The assessee knows all the material and relevant facts, the assessing authority might not. In respect of the material failure, the omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent. That was immaterial. But if there is omission to disclose material facts, then subject to the other conditions, jurisdiction to reopen is attracted. If there are some primary facts from which reasonable belief could be formed that there was some nondisclosure or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the ITO has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. In the instant case, the officer has applied mind and has recorded the opinion with the belief that there lies an income that has escaped the assessment. The mere fact that the same could have been pointed out by the Audit Party may not make the Assessing Officer to entertain the due jurisdiction and power/duty vested upon him by the IT Act. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judicial forums, few of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both to the Income Tax officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at Chennai and Bangalore vide communication dated 08.08.2013 about the merger of the said Doosan International India Private Limited. 6. It is submitted that the second respondent issued notice dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment of the Assessment Year 2009-2010 in the name of Doosan International India Private Limited, a defunct company, which has culminated in impugned order dated 25.10.2016 in the name of the aforesaid company. It is noticed that the notice dated 31.03.2016 was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. The first respondent gave its reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings vide communication dated 29.04.2016. In response to the same, the petitioner also filed its objection dated 01.06.2016. The first respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 and rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 8. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled on the letter head of the petitioner company, namely Doosan Infracore India Private Limited. This was perhaps on account of the fact that the said company had already been merged with the petitioner and stood dissolved without being merged in terms of the order dated 17.02.2021 of the Karnataka High Court in C.P.No.201 of 2011. However, no intimation was given about the same by the petitioner until 08.08.2013. Thus, the jurisdictional officer, within whose jurisdiction the said transfer company, namely Doosan International India Private Limited, was registered, passed an order of assessment on 01.03.2013 in the name of the said company with the PAN No. of the said company. It was argued that the Assessing Officer disallowed only the depreciation claimed on account of the non-compete fees which implied the depreciation claimed under the other head was considered and allowed in the light of the fact that a proper explanation was given for the same. 13. It is submitted that in the reasoning given in the reopening assessment vide communication dated 29.04.2016, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) has merely stated that the said company had acquired the business of M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2000) 241 ITR 672 (Madras) : (1999) 107 Taxman 53 (Madras). iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) : (2003) 129 Taxman 72 (SC). iv. Foramer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2001) 247 ITR 436 (Allahabad) : (2001) 119 Taxman 61 (Allahabad). v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) : (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC). vi. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) : (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi). vii.PVP Ventures Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai, (2016) 65 taxmann.com 221 (Madras). viii.Karti P.Chidambaram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai, (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Madras) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 27 (Madras). ix. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.16 (2) Vs. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC). x. Asianet Star Communications (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1), (2020) 422 ITR 47 (Madras) : (2019) 106 taxmann.com 293 (Mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing and therefore, this Writ Petition was premature. 21. The learned senior standing counsel further submits that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the depreciation was allowed on Customer / Vendor and Dealer list during the Assessment Year 2008-2009, ipso facto will not mean that for the subsequent Assessment Years, the same cannot be rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner had wrongly claimed the depreciation on four items during the Assessment Year, i.e 2008-2009. The Original Authority had denied the depreciation on non-compete fees. She further submits that each of the other Assessment Year is different and there is no estoppels under law against the reopening the assessment. 22. The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents further submits that the transferred company which got merged with the petitioner has made internal allocation of the assets without any valuation and has wrongly claimed depreciation on the value allocated for the Customer / Vendor and Dealer list. She further submitted that the claim for depreciation under the heads of Customer / Vendor and Dealer list goes to the very root and it would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner and was ordered to be liquidated without being wound up by an order dated 25.11.2011 of this Court and an order dated 17.02.2012 of the Karnataka High Court. 27. As a result of the amalgamation/merger, the said Doosan International India Private Limited, assessee company stood merged with the petitioner company from the effective date as per the sanctioned scheme of amalgamation. 28. Though the assessee company Doosan International India Private Limited stood merged/amalgamated with the petitioner company, no information was given about the merger to the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer or the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax at Bangalore by the petitioner. 29. In the assessment proceeding, the petitioner replied to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of Doosan International India Private Limited though on its letter head. The petitioner participated in the proceedings before the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and made submissions on 21.09.2012 and on 07.01.2013 without any demur. 30. Thus, the assessment order dated 01.03.2013 also came to be passed in the name of the said Doosan Internatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes that any terms or provisions of the Scheme which are found or interpreted to be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Section at a later date including resulting for an amendment of law or for any reason whatsoever after the effective date, the provisions of the said section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall prevail and the scheme shall stand modified to the extent determined necessary to comply with the aforesaid Section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and such modification shall however not affect other parts of the scheme. The definition in Section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it clear that all the liabilities of the amalgamating company or companies immediately before the amalgamation becomes the property of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation. 38. Facts also do not indicate that the petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the respondent when the notice dated 31.03.2016 was issued in the name of transferor company Doosan international Private Limited. Therefore, the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent to reopen the assessment stands overruled. 39. Coming to the merits of the case, i....