TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order. Facts of the case for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 are the same and for the AY 2010-11 the facts are similar. Therefore, the appeals are decided in common Order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The assessee filed the returns of income for the AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10 in the name of M/s. F G Wilson Generators India Pvt. Ltd., and the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO') passed the Assessment Orders u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act') on 30.12.2010 for the AY 2008-09 and on 28.10.2011 in the case of AY 2009-10. Both the assessments are re-opened u/s.147 and the revised the assessments u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 were passed on 22.01.2014 in the same name of the company. Both the Assessments were re-opened to disallow the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in re-opening the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act merely based on change of opinion. 4. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act despite the Appellant making a true and full disclosure of the claim of deduction of warranty in the profit and loss account of the financial statement and the notes to accounts thereto which were already available with the Learned AO. 5. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act despite no 'new material' being unearthed and by merely observing that a claim of deduction had been made in relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings against the Appellant. 5.0 Grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee for both the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 are common. 6.0 Ground Nos.1-5 are related to the re-opening of assessment. These grounds of appeal are not raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). As stated earlier, the assessee filed return of income in the name of erstwhile company, M/s.F G Wilson Generators India Pvt. Ltd. which was subsequently merged with M/s.Cater Piller India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.AR argued that as on the date of Assessment Order, there was no company in existence in the name M/s.F G Wilson Generator India Pvt. Ltd. Since the company was not in existence at the time of passing the Order, according to the Ld.AR, the Assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regarding the merger of the company with M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. However, on careful perusal of the revised Assessment Order, it did not indicate any knowledge of the AO regarding the merger of the company. These grounds are first time raised before the Tribunal but not assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the lower authorities had no occasion to examine the factual and legal aspects of these grounds. The Ld.AR relied on the Apex Court's decision in the case of the NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that - The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for warranty expenses. The assessee explained the reasons for non-submission of the details before the AO & Ld.CIT(A). 9.0 We heard both the parties and admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice. The issue relating to the claim of warranty expenses depend on the validity of the re-opening of assessment, Since the assessee raised the issue relating to issue of notice u/s 148 in the name of non existing company which required to be addressed first and then the merits of the case. Therefore, we remit the issue relating to the merits of the disallowance also back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and allowability of the expenditure on the facts of the case in the light of the above discussion m....