1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.7.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL No.967 of 2013 (heard through video conferencing) Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.ABT Limited, Coimbatore-18. Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 04.7.2013 made in ITA.No.154/Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench for assessment year 2004-05. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthikumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSC For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J http://www.judis.nic.in 2 We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant - Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for respondent assessee. With consent of learned counsel on either side, appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. appeal has been admitted on 02.4.2014 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether, under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside assessment made under Section 147 holding that same was initiated on account of change of opinion ? And 2. Whether, under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose truly and fully details and particulars necessary for completing earlier assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act? 3. assessment for year 2004-05 was completed by Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3) and 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act) by order dated 31.12.2009. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Subsequently, assessment was reopened by Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3) and 147 of Act, which culminated in order of assessment dated 30.12.2011. Aggrieved by same and more particularly expenses incurred on cost of construction of building on lease hold building/land, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore [for brevity, CIT(A)]. Ultimately, CIT(A), by order dated 02.11.2012, allowed appeal filed by assessee. 4. As against order passed by CIT(A), Revenue preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter called Tribunal). Tribunal, after considering factual position, came to conclusion that reopening was change of opinion and dismissed appeal filed by Revenue by order dated 04.7.2013. As against that, Revenue is on appeal before us. 5. After elaborately hearing learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant Revenue and learned counsel for respondent assessee, we are of considered view that reasons assigned by Tribunal for dismissing appeal filed by Revenue are perfectly justified. Tribunal took note of fact that respondent - assessee filed computation statement along with http://www.judis.nic.in 4 original assessment, which showed expenditure on construction of building on lease hold land/building and this was specifically mentioned and claimed as revenue expenditure. assessment was completed after examining computation statement and break-up details furnished by assessee. After taking into consideration these facts and fact that assessment was reopened beyond period of four years and also after considering Proviso to Section 147 of Act, Tribunal held that reopening was one of change of opinion. First Appellate Authority and Tribunal, on facts, found that respondent assessee made full disclosure of expenditure and claimed same as revenue expenditure. We hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, above tax case appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. 06.7.2020 RS http://www.judis.nic.in 5 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J RS To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. T.C.A.No.967 of 2013 06.7.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. ABT Limited