SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKERS P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO WD 7(2)2), MUMBAI

ITA 3271/MUM/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 327119914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3271/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKERS P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO WD 7(2)2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 18-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA AM & SMT ASHA VIJAYRAGHA VAN JM I.T.A. NO. 3271/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKERS PVT.LTD. V THE I.T.O. WARD 7(2)(2) 34 QUAY STREET NEW KHANA AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-10. MUMBAI. PA NO.AAECS 5872 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.GOPAL/SATENDRA PANDEY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA O R D E R PER S.V.MEHROTRA AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24.4.2009 OF LD CIT (A)-VII MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -02. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHIP BREAKING AND DEALIN G IN IRON & STEEL. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2983/-. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED U/S.143(3) ON 9.1.2004 AT A TOTAL INCOME AS PER BOOK PROFIT AT RS.1 12 418/-. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S.147 AND WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 3 90 222/- AFTER DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN REGARD TO RIGH TS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY /PLOT AT BHAVNAGAR GUJARAT. 3. BEFORE LD CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA CHA LLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 AND THE SAME GROUND WAS DISMISSED BY LD CIT (A). ON MERIT ALSO LD CIT (A) ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 2 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIE VED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD AO U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN LA W AS THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT DULY COMPLETED U/S.143(3) AFTER EXPIRY O F FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS TIME BARRED BECAUSE ALL MATERIALS FACTS RELATING TO ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF INTANGIBLE ASSET BEING LICENSE PREMIUM WERE FULLY & TRULY DISCLOSED. 4. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN TH IS CASE RETURN WAS FILED ON 12.10.2001 ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 9.1.2004 AND NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED ON 29.6.2007. THUS NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSU ED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE FOUR YEARS EXPIRED ON 31.3.2006. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PA ID PREMIUM FOR ACQUISITION OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT FROM GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD(GMB). THE SAID PREMIUM WAS PAID FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED FROM GMB SO THAT THE SHIP BREAKING AC TIVITY COULD BE CARRIED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH PAYMENT O F PREMIUM FOR ACQUIRING SUCH PLOT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN TO HAVE ACQUIRED RI GHTS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY/PLOT AT BHAVNAGAR (GUJARAT) BY PAYMENT OF RS.70 LAKHS TO M/S. RAJIV SHIP BREAKERS AND RS.25.49 LAKHS TO GUJARAT MARITIM E BOARD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAMED DEPRECIATION @ 25% AMOUNTING TO RS.2 3.87 LAKHS TREATING THE SAME AS INTANGIBLE ASSET. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH DEPR ECIATION AT THE RATE OF 25% TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23 87 239/- IS CLAIMED. THE ASSES SEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.6.2003 HAS GIVEN DETAILS/REPLY AS UNDER: THE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LICENSE OF PLOT ALONG WIT H MACHINERY IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER O F THE LAND. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED THE LICENSE TO US E THE PLOT. PLOT LICENSE BEING INTANGIBLE PROPERTY DEPRECIATION @ 2 5% TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23 87 239/- IS CLAIMED U/S.32(1)(II). THE SOURC E OF INVESTMENT IN THE PLOT AND MACHINERY IS BY WAY OF PAYMENTS MADE FROM CHOUDHURY INDUSTRIES. DETAILS OF PLOT ACCOUNT RAJIV SHIP BREAKERS RS.70 00 000 GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD RS.25 48 954 RS.95 48 954 ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME WAS ALLOWED. AS PER THE DETAILS NOW AVAILABLE ON RECORD (WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE/S UBMITTED TO AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) IN THE FORM OF A LETTER OF ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 3 M/S. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD DATED 5 TH JUNE 2000 AS PER WHICH ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF ONLY RS.16 38 954/- TO GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD AND NOT RS.25 48 954/- AS CLAIMED. IN FACT THE BALANCE OF RS.9 09 954/- IS THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A BANK GUAR ANTEE. MOREOVER THE ABOVE ASSET IS ALSO NOT AN INTANGIBLE ASSET AS DEFINED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT HENCE IT IS NOT ELIG IBLE TO CLAIM THE ABOVE STATED DEPRECIATION. NON DISCLOSURE OF THE ABOVE D ETAILS REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS CLEAR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLO SE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 137 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. I HAVE THEREFORE REASON TO BELIEV E THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02. HE NCE NOTICE U/S.148 IS ISSUED. THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CIT- VII MUMBAI. LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 32 OF PB WHEREIN QUES TIONNAIRE DATED 16.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS CONTAINED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAD SPECIFICA LLY INTER ALIA MADE THE FOLLOWING QUERY: PLEASE FURNISH THE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LICENSE O F PLOT DATED 13.4.2000 FOR RS.95 48 954/- AND THE SOURCE OF THIS INVESTMEN T. WHETHER YOU ARE THE OWNER OF PLOT OF LAND IF NOT PLEASE SUBSTANTIATE Y OUR CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AT 25% AT RS.23 87 239/- ON THIS INVESTMENT OF THIS PLOT. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE 34 OF PB WHEREIN ASSE SSEES REPLY DATED JUNE 25 2003 IS CONTAINED IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INTER ALIA STATED AS UNDER: THE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LICENSE OF PLOT ALONGWIT H MACHINERY IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAN D. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED THE LICENSE TO USE THE PLOT. PLOT LICENSE BEING THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY DEPRECIATION @ 25% TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.23 87 239/- IS CLAIMED U/S.32(1)(II). THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PLOT AND MACHINERY IS BY WAY OF PAYMENTS MADE FROM CHAUDHRY INDUSTRIES. DETAILS OF PLOT A/C. RAJIV SHIP BREAKERS RS.70 00 000 GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD RS.25 48 954 RS.95 48 954 LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAG E 36 OF PB WHEREIN ASSESSEES REPLY DATED JULY 4 2003 IN REGARD TO AOS QUERY VIDE LET TER DATED 16.6.2003 IS CONTAINED IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE BREAK-UP OF CHARG ES OF RS.25 48 954/- IN WHICH IT WAS STATED AS UNDER:- A NOC LETTER FROM GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD CONFIRMIN G CHARGES OF RS.25 48 954 TOWARDS TRANSFER OF LICENSE FOR USER O F PLOT FROM M/S. RAJEEV SHIP BREAKERS TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER CONFIRMIN G THE SAID PAYMENT ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 4 THROUGH A DEMAND DRAFT OF RS.16 38 954 & BANK GUARA NTEE OF RS.9 10 000 IS ENCLOSED. THEREAFTER LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 38 OF PB WHICH IS A QUERY LETTER DATED 16.7.2003 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE IS CONTAI NED WHEREIN THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER AS TO HOW THE DEPRECIATION HAD B EEN CLAIMED ON LAND. LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGES 43 & 44 OF PB WHEREIN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED ON 9.1.2004 U/S.143(3) IS CONTAINED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AFTER D ETAILED QUERIES AS NOTED ABOVE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS DULY ALLOWED. LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 45 OF PB WHEREIN NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 29.6.2007 IS CONT AINED WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.7.2007 WHICH IS CONTAINED AT PAGE 46 OF PB. LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 47 OF PB WHEREIN REASONS RECORDED ON 24.7.2007 IS CONTAINED AS REPRODUCED EARLIER AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID REASONS THE AO HAS I NTER ALIA STATED THAT PAYMENT TO GMB WAS RS.16 38 954 AND NOT RS.25 48 954/- AND FOR RS. 9 09 954/- THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY GIVEN THE BANK GUARANTEE. IN THIS REGARD LD COUNS EL AGAIN REFERRED TO PAGE 36 OF PB WHICH IS LETTER DATED 4.7.2003 REPRODUCED EARLIER IN WHICH IT WAS INTER ALIA CLEARLY STATED THAT GMB CONFIRMED THE CHARGES OF RS.25 48 9 54 TOWARDS TRANSFER OF LICENSE OF USER OF PLOT FROM M/S. RAJEEV SHIP BREAKERS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENT OF RS.16 38 954 WAS MADE THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT AND BAN K GUARANTEE FOR RS.9 10 000/- WAS GIVEN. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAI LS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS NOT CORR ECT TO SAY THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE/SUBMITTED TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULLY AND TRULY DIS CLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHAVESH DEVELOPERS V CIT (WRIT PETITION NO.2508 OF 2009) W HEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE REASONS SHOW THAT THE FINDING IS BASED ON THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEA AND FROM THE PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT. QU ITE CLEARLY THEREFORE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EVEN DR AW THE INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. SIGNIFICANTLY THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE DO NOT CONTAIN A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS A FA ILURE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL NECESSARY FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PUR POSE OF ASSESSMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A V ALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AFTER A LAPSE OF FOU R YEARS FROM THE ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 5 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN URGED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT AN EXCEPTIONAL POWER HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPON THE REVEN UE TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT AFTER A LAPSE OF FOUR YEARS. THE CONDIT IONS WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE FOR THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER MUST BE STRICTLY FULFILLED AND IN THEIR ABSENCE THE EXERCISE OF POW ERS WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 5. LD DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE APPEARING FOR THE REVENU E SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ALL THE DETAILS SHOULD HAVE FULLY AND TRULY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147 AS PER WHICH PRODUCTION BEFORE THE AO OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHIC H MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE AO WILL NOT N ECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISO. HE T HEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE IN THE LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE D ETAILS OF PAYMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION DATED 16.9.2009 OF THE HONB LE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EMA INDIA LTD. V ACIT (CIVIL MISC WRIT PETITION NO.181 (TAX) OF 2004 WHEREIN IT WAS INTER ALIA HELD AS UNDER:- ON A COMBINED READING OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE APEX COURT IN KALYANJI MAVJI(SUPRA) INDIAN EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY AND A.L. A. FIRM (SUPRA) WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PROPOSITION NO.4 VIZ; WHERE THE INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED EVEN FROM THE RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT FROM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OR THE FACTS DISCLOSED THEREBY OR FROM OTHER ENQUIRY OR RESEARCH INTO FACTS OR LAW: STILL HOLDS GOODS AND T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT CERTAIN ITEMS OF INCOME THOUGH CHARG EABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF THE AO AND NO DISCUSSION OF CHARGEABILITY OF THE TAX ON THE SAID ITEMS OF INCOME WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN A.L.A. FIRM (SUPRA) THE INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AN D NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. .THIRDLY WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PAS SED AND CERTAIN ITEMS OF INCOME WERE NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED AND IT ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS PAS SED IN RESPECT TO THOSE ITEMS OF INCOME IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER DID NOT FORM ANY VIEW OR ANY OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE ITEMS OF INCOME W HICH ESCAPED ITS NOTICE IT WILL NOT AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OR CHANGE OF OPIN ION. WHEN NO OPINION WAS FORMED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HOW CAN THERE BE ANY CHANGE OF OPINION. INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS PERMISSIB LE WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND SUCH APPLICATION OF MIND CAN BE FOUND OUT FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF INASMUCH AS IN THE EVENT THE ORDER OF ASSESS MENT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 6 DISCUSSION ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE THE SAME MAY BE H ELD TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. 6. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER S UBMITTED THAT AS NARRATED EARLIER SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO WHICH WAS DULY EXAMINED AND THEREFORE ASSESSEES CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 147. AS REGARDS THE DECISION R ELIED BY LD D.R. IN THE CASE OF EMA INDIA LTD (SUPRA) LD CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. ADMITTEDLY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE SPECIFIC QUERY IN REGARD TO DEPRECIATION BEING CHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AND AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF FACTS ALLOWED THE AS SESSEES CLAIM. VIDE LETTER DATED 4.7.2003 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY GIVEN THE CONTEN T OF THE NOC LETTER FROM GMB IN WHICH IT WAS INTER ALIA STATED THAT THE PAYMENT THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT WAS RS.16 38 954 AND BANK GUARANTEE RS.9 10 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED COPY OF AGREEMENT OF LICENSE OF PLOT VIDE LETTER DATED 36.5.2003. IT WA S ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LICENSE HAD BEEN ACQUIRED TO USE THE PLOT AND SAME BEING INTANG IBLE PROPERTY DEPRECIATION @ 25% WAS CLAIMED. THEREFORE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS NEC ESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT WERE BEFORE THE AO AND HE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION AFTER DUE APPLI CATION OF MIND TO ALL THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. WE DO NOT FIND MUCH SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD D. R. THAT ALL THE DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN. TH E REQUIREMENT OF PROVISO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT. THESE DETAILS MAY BE FILED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO IN REPLY TO VARIOUS QUERIES OF THE AO. THE RE QUIREMENT OF PROVISO PRIMARILY IS THAT BEFORE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CULMINATE IN THE PASS ING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALL MATERIAL DETAILS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABL E WITH AO. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROVISO IS TO BRING FINALITY TO THE PROCEEDING S IF THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S INITIATED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE SAME. ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 7 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL 2010 SD/- (ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 30 TH APRIL 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH E MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.4.2010 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.4.2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NO.3271/M/2009 M/S. SALASAR BALAJI SHIP BREAKES P.LTD. 8