TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the CIT seeking to revise the original assessment order dated 31.12.2007 passed under section 143(3) in the guise of revising the reassessment order dated 4.3.2013 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act, is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, since the reassessment order was patently without jurisdiction, impugned revisionary proceedings were also without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed under section 263 of the Act, without appreciating that the twin conditions of that section viz., assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, were not satisfied, is illegal and bad in law. 1.5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in exercising revisionary jurisdiction in respect of issues, which stood merged with the order(s) of the appellate authorities and, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.6 That o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nity of being heard to the appellant. 4. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary jurisdiction and in holding that the assessing officer erred in allowing deduction under section 80-IB of the Act in respect of various other manufacturing units [including Mini Blast Fumance ("MBF") unit], 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the reassessment order on the aforesaid issue of deduction 80- IB of the Act, despite the fact that the eligibility to claim deduction under that section was not at all subject matter of consideration in the reassessment proceedings. 4.2 That the CIT erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled deduction under section 80-IB of the Act in respect of various manufacturing units. 5. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that even the issue of quantum of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act in respect of profits derived from MBF unit was outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction. 5.1 That the CIT failed to appreciate that deduction under section 80-IB in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertakings 1,96,70,79,113 1,17,78,86,782 2. Deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of MBF unit 41,20,57,046 47,39,65,444 3. Deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of other independent/ eligible units 16,92,26,199 24,56,60,182 Total 2,54,83,62,358 1,89,75,12,408 The fact that the claim of deductions under sections 80-IA and 80- IB were verified by the AO in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2007 6. The Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), which was partly allowed vide order dated 11.11.2008. The CIT(A) examined the claim of deduction under sections 80-IA and 80-IB and therefore, on the said issue of deduction claimed under the said sections, the assessment order stood merged with the order of the CIT(A) 7. Against the aforesaid order, cross-appeals were filed by the Assessee and the Department before this Tribunal, which were decided vide order dated 06.03.2014. 8. In the meanwhile, reassessment proceedings for AY 2005-06, were initiated by the AO vide notice dated 23.03.2012, issued under section 148 of the Act. The AO, thereafter, proceeded to complete reassessment vide order dated 04.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only in the year of setting up of unit(s) but also in all subsequent assessment year(s); • this issue stood finally concluded in the earlier assessment years and was never a subject matter of dispute; • issue of eligible deduction under sections 80-IA and 80-IB was extensively examined/ verified by the AOin every assessment year(s), which is evident from the fact that in various assessments, claim of deduction(s) were substantially varied/ reduced; • on the issue of claim of deduction under sections 80-IA and 80-IB of the Act, appeals were filed before the CIT(A) and therefore, assessments for various assessment years stood merged with the order(s) of the CIT(A). Further, in certain assessment years, this issue also stood decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal; • books of account were produced, verified and examined by the AO in various assessment years, including assessment year 2005-06, the year under consideration. Finally the Ld.PCIT passed order dated 27.03.2015 under section 263 of the Act. 12. We find delay in filing of the present appealis owing to the appeal filed by the assessee before th Hon'ble High court by way of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of CIT V. Bharti Airtel Limited: [2013] 218 Taxman 112 (Pg. 36-37 CLC) held that where subject matter of additions made in revisionary order were not dealt with in reassessment order passed under section 147, limitation for revision would begin from date of original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, and not from the date of reassessment order. In that case, reassessment order was passed on two issues, viz., non-deduction of tax on payment of interest and allowability of ESOP expenses. Therefore, revisionary order passed on issue of non-deduction of tax at source on free airtime and roaming charges was held to be barred by limitation since limitation had to be seen from the original assessment order. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd V. ACIT: 325 ITR 574 (Bom) Pg. 38-44 of CLC has also taken the same view. That similar issue was also considered in the case of CIT V. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd: 330 ITR 568 (Mad). (Pg. 45-49 CLC) It is important to mention a recent decision of Indira Industries vs. PCIT, Madras High Court ([2018] 95 taxmann.com 292 (Madras)) has followed the said Supreme Court ruling and has stated that initia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered by the CIT(Appeals), the entire issue merges with the order of CIT(Appeals) and no other aspect of that issue can be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act: Oil India Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta: 138 ITR 836 Smt. Sujatha Grower v. DICT: 74 TTJ 347 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd v. ACIT: 74 TTJ 67 Saw Pipes Limited v. ACIT: 94 TTJ 1036 Sonal Garments v. JCIT: 95 ITD 363 Maricolndustries Ltd. v. ACIT: 115 TTJ 497 In view of the aforesaid, the assessment order qua the issues/ claim, which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT (deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act), merged with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the said claim/ issue(s) was clearly beyond the scope of revisionary power vested in the CIT under section 263 of the Act. (iii) Claim u/s 80IA and 80IB allowed by the AO after due application of mind 19. In respect of the year under consideration, the AO after due application of mind, and after detailed examination and verification, partially allowed the claim of the Assessee, in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2007. The same is evident from the rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cific and categorical finding was recorded by the AO in the original assessment order and therefore, reassessment order was passed, bn mere change of opinion, that too, in proceedings initiated after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year, was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. Allowed by the DRP itself in A Y 2013-14. A Y 2014-15 and A Y 2015-16 21. The Ld.Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has on merits adjudicated this issue in favour of the Assessee and held that the deduction u/s 80IA and 80IB cannot be denied merely on the ground that separate books of accounts were not maintained. Hence, even on merits this issue stands covered totally in favour of the Assessee. It is submitted that on the same issue addition were proposed by AO on the draft assessment order for AY 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 and Assessee had filed objection before DRP. Considering the merits of the case, the DRP had decided the issue in favour of the Assessee and held that there is no mandate of law to maintain separate books of accounts for eligible undertaking in conventional form. It is submitted that since the DRP had already decided the issue on the merits of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 2011- 12 at pages-4 to 108. Even the concluding part in para- at pages-108 to 112 is verbatim the same as at para-5.15 pages-99 to 101 of the draft assessment order for AY 2011-12, except for the observation at para-4.2.12(vii) that, "Further the AR has raised another point regarding the Hon'ble DRP in AY 2013-14 has considered the assessee's submission allowed (lie relief on both the issues i.e. Captive power plants are undertaking within the meaning of Sec 80IA and maintenance of separate books of accounts for power units. The Assessee submitted that to take the same view in this year aswell as decided by the Hon'ble DRP. The assessee's request cannot be acceded on the following reasons. First, in taxation each assessment year is separate year and Hie AO can analyse any issue based on tho available facts. Second, the appeals for the earlier years on the issue are ponding before tho Hon'ble ITAT for adjudication. Therefore in view of the above the request of the assessee is rejected." 5.2. The AO has proposed addition of the entire amount of deduction claimed of Rs. 483,06,62,4577-. We have dealt with this matter in details in our Directions for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars, as would be evident from the following: • Scrutiny assessments under section 143(3) of the Act have been undertaken for all the assessment years, viz. assessment years 2000-01 to 2010-11 wherein the claim has been allowed in principle • Deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB are evident on the face of returns/ computation of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2010-11; • Deduction for all years is duly supported by certificate(s) in Form 10CCB duly certified by the Chartered Accountant and also separate balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account filed during the course of assessment proceedings. • There is, in fact, elaborate discussion of the claim of deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act in the regular assessment orders for earlier AY starting assessment years 2000-01. Further, claim of deduction under the said sections were substantially varied in all the assessment years. 23. There being no change either in facts or in law, as compared to earlier and subsequent years, the position determined by the department needs to be followed even on the principle of consistency. Specific Queries with regard to the ....