$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1-2. + ITA 768/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-08 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus SAMCOR GLASS LTD. ..... Respondent And + ITA 769/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-O8 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus M/S SAMTEL COLOR LTD. ..... Respondent CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 12.10.2015 CM APPL No. 22567 of 2015 (for condonation of delay) in ITA No. 768 of 2015 CM APPL No. 22568 of 2015 (for condonation of delay) in ITA No. 769 of 2015 1. For reasons stated in applications, delay in refiling appeals ITA Nos.768/2015 & 769/2015 Page 1 of 4 is condoned. 2. applications are disposed of. ITA No. 768 of 2015 and ITA No. 769/2015 3. These appeals by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) are directed against common order dated 17th February 2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos. 4135/Del/2010 and 4134/Del/2010 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2002- 03. 4. Although Assessees in both appeals are different, issue involved in both cases is similar, i.e., whether reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of Act is valid? 5. Apart from fact that impugned order of ITAT suffers from no legal infirmity, Court is of view that on face of it, reasons for reopening of assessment in both cases did not satisfy basic requirement of law, in at least in two aspects. One was that reopening was of assessment beyond four years after AY for which original assessment was framed and yet reasons for reopening did not categorically state that there was failure by Assessees to disclose any material particulars on basis of which there were reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. This Court has recently, in decision dated 22nd September 2015 in ITA No. 356 of 2013 (CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd.), clearly stated in cases where reopening of assessment is beyond four years from end of relevant assessment year condition that there has been failure on part of Assessee ITA Nos.768/2015 & 769/2015 Page 2 of 4 to truly and fully disclose all material facts must be concluded with certain level of certainty. 6. Secondly, Court finds that at least in respect of one of issues, viz., payment of interest on fixed deposits, Assessees drew attention of Assessing Officer ( AO ) to fact that amount has already been offered to tax and tax had been paid and yet, in order disposing of objections, AO is completely silent as regards this objection. 7. Court is of view that notwithstanding several decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Court clearly enunciating legal position under Section 147/148 of Act, reopening of assessment in cases like one on hand give impression that reopening of assessment is being done mechanically and casually resulting in unnecessary harassment of Assessee. 8. Court would have been inclined to impose heavy costs on Revenue for filing such frivolous appeals but declines to do so since appeals are being dismissed ex parte. However, Court directs Revenue through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr CIT) to issue instructions to AOs to strictly adhere to law explained in various decisions of Supreme Court and High Court in regard to Sections 147/148 of Act and make it mandatory for them to ensure that order for reopening of assessment clearly records compliance with each of legal requirements. Secondly, AOs must be directed to strictly comply with law explained by Supreme Court in GKN ITA Nos.768/2015 & 769/2015 Page 3 of 4 Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) as regards disposal of objections raised by Assessee to reopening of assessment. 9. appeals are dismissed with above observations. 10. certified copy of this order be delivered to Pr CIT concerned for compliance. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 12, 2015 mg ITA Nos.768/2015 & 769/2015 Page 4 of 4 Principle Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Samcor Glass Ltd