Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 27.3.2015, Annexure P.1 passed under Sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") vide which assessment order dated 4.3.2013 passed under Sec. 147 of the Act by respondent No. 2 was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to make fresh assessment after making necessary and proper enquiry/investigation.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is engaged, inter -alia, in the business of manufacture/generation of steel, power, iron, pig iron, sponge iron etc. at various separate and independent individual units/undertakings located at Raigarh and other locations. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2005 -06 viz. the year under consideration, the petitioner filed revised return of income on 30th March 2007 declaring income of Rs. 92,06,88,890/ -. In the return of income, the petitioner claimed certain deductions under Ss. 80IA and 80IB of the Act. The said deductions were supported by the audit report in prescribed Form No. 10CCB filed alongwith the return of income. All the units in respect of which deduction under Ss. 80IA and 80IB of the Act was claimed by the petitioner in the assessment year 2005 -06 were separate industrial units/undertakings, independently eligible for deduction under the respective sections. The said units were set up in the earlier assessment years and the eligibility of the petitioner to claim deduction under Ss. 80IA and 80IB of the Act in respect of profits derived from various units was subject matter of not only in the earlier assessment years but also in the assessment year under consideration. Original assessment under Sec. 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2005 -06 was completed vide order dated 31.12.2007, Annexure P.3 after examining claim of deduction under Ss. 80IA and 80IB of the Act. The deductions claimed by the petitioner were varied/reduced for the reasons set out in the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was partly allowed vide order dated 11.11.2008, Annexure P.4. While adjudicating the appeal filed by the petitioner, the CIT(A) examined the claim of deduction under Ss. 80IA and 80IB of the Act and therefore, on the issue of deduction claimed under the said sections, the assessment order stood merged with the order of the CIT(A). Against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 11.11.2008, Annexure P.4, cross appeals were filed by the petitioner and the respondents before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 6.3.2014, Annexure P.5, the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before this Court bearing ITA Nos. 281 and 282 of 2014 on the issue of taxability of subsidy/incentive which were admitted vide order dated 16.12.2014, Annexure P.6. In the meantime, reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005 -06 i.e. the year under consideration were initiated by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 23.3.2012, under Sec. 148 of the Act i.e. after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer rejected the legal objections raised by the petitioner and proceeded to complete reassessment vide order dated 4.3.2013 under Sec. 143(3)/147 of the Act reducing the amount eligible for deduction in respect of MBF units to Rs. 32,36,61,107/ -. The aforesaid reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on the ground that losses aggregating to Rs. 8,83,95,939/ - suffered in the MBF unit in earlier assessment years were required to be set off on notional basis in order to determine the amount of profits in respect of MBF unit eligible for deduction under Sec. 80IB of the Act. Against the reassessment order dated 4.3.2013, Annexure P.7, the petitioner filed appeal before the CIT(A) which is pending. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice dated 22.10.2013, Annexure P.8 under Sec. 263 of the Act proposing to revise the reassessment order dated 4.3.2013. It was alleged that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Against the said notice, the petitioner filed legal objections challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 under Sec. 263 of the Act. The petitioner requested respondent No. 1 to either drop the revisionary proceedings under Sec. 263 of the Act or to dispose of the legal objections challenging the validity of the said proceedings. The CIT, however, continued with the revisionary proceedings and directed the petitioner to file various details/documents form time to time without disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner. On 18.3.2015, another show cause notice, Annexure P.10 was issued by respondent No. 1 requiring the petitioner to show cause why appropriate order under Sec. 263 of the Act should not be passed for the assessment year under consideration. It was alleged by respondent No. 1 in the said show cause notice that separate books of account were not being maintained in respect of MBF unit and therefore the said unit was not eligible for deduction under Sec. 80IB of the Act. The petitioner was directed to furnish reply within three days. The petitioner filed letter dated 23.3.2015, Annexure P.11 inter alia reiterating in detail the legal objections challenging the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of the Act. The petitioner again requested respondent No. 1 to dispose of the legal objections raised by it. Respondent No. 1 without disposing of the legal objections raised by the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 27.3.2015, Annexure P.1 under Sec. 263 of the Act. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner.
(3.) A short reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been filed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has a statutory efficacious/alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under Sec. 253(1) of the Act. On merits also, the impugned order has been supported.;