COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. AMCO BATTERIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive batteries. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 22.12.2006 completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement and in consideration, the assessee was to receive 28% of the saleable constructed area and the assessee had handed over the possession of the land in pursuance of joint venture agreement. It was further held that handing over the possession of the land would amount to transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore, reopened the assessment and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.12.2011 completed the re-assessment and brought to tax the transaction relating to transfer of land at Hebbal under the Long Term Capital Gains.

(3.) The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 28.11.2012 held that re opening of the assessment is in accordance with law. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) by filing an appeal. The tribunal by an order dated 30.07.2013 inter alia held that earlier order of assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2006 and the assessment has been reopened after expiry of four years and therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies. It was also held that the Assessing Officer has not mentioned that the assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for computing its income, due to which the income had escaped tax. Accordingly, the order of re assessment was set aside. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.