IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 520/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet 
 Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 INDIAN VACCINE CORPORATION LTD.      ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: None. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
       25.09.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) dated 27.02.2012 in ITA 
 No.5751/Del/2011.  The question of law is whether the Tribunal fell into 
 error in holding that the reopening of assessment in the facts of this 
 case was not warranted. 
 . 
 The assessment year in this case is 2003-04; the assessee filed its 
 return declaring a loss of `2,22,790/- in assessment proceedings under 
 Section 143(3) which were completed on 05.09.2005.  The re-assessment 
 proceedings were initiated under Section 147 by a notice dated 15.02.2010 
 and orders were made on 29.10.2010 determining the total income of 
 `31,69,000/-.  The assessee?s appeal against the reassessment in view of 
 the judgment of this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 
 336 ITR 136 was allowed.  The Revenue?s appeal was rejected by the 
 Tribunal which form the opinion that no question of law arose.  The 
 Tribunal followed the view of this Court and the Bombay High Court in Jet 
 Airways (331 ITR 236) that the expression ?and also? occurring in Section 
 147 imply that the ?income? which was the subject matter of the notice 
 under Section 147 had to necessarily form part of the addition made in 
 the reassessment proceedings and in its absence, the primary jurisdiction 
 would cease.  This Court has noted the grounds of appeal and considered 
 the submissions.  The impugned order cannot be faulted.  The decision in 
 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) is clear in that matters which are the 
 subject matter of the notice under Section 147 have to necessarily form 
 part of the reassessment made.  Therefore, no substantial question of law 
 arises.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 
 . 
 hs 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 3 
 .