(1.) The assessee by way of this appeal impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 09.09.2011. The impugned order dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a statutory corporation, claimed the benefit of Section 10(29) contending that its income was exempted from taxation as it carried on warehousing and storage activity. The original assessment for AY 1995-96 was made on 22.01.1998. The assessee's contentions were accepted in respect of a portion of its income which was held to be exempted under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At that time the prevailing law had been declared by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. UP State Warehousing Corporation, 1991 187 ITR 54. The eligibility of corporations and companies carrying on warehousing activities to claim benefit of Section 10(29) was finally pronounced by the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 1999 237 ITR 589. The Supreme Court held that the question of exemption would arise and pertain to that part of income which is derived by letting out of godowns and warehouses for the purposes of Section 10(29) and the other income would not be eligible for such benefits. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 147/ 148 claiming that he has reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment for AY 1995-96. The reasons to believe, inter alia, cited the decision of Supreme Court in Orissa Warehousing . The appellant felt aggrieved by the reopening of assessment and approached this Court which in its judgment and order dated 14.01.2011 in ITA Nos.464-465 and 473/2010 remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The operative portion of this Court's directions are as follows: -
(3.) By the impugned order the assessee's appeal has been rejected. The grievance articulated by the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not followed the directions that were spelt out in the order made by this Court on 14.01.2011. It is contended that para 33 was specific as to whether the question urged i.e. that the "reasons to believe" was based upon a mere change of opinion, but has not been addressed at all despite a direction in that regard.