2003 (2) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment limitation - reason to believe - In cases of reopening after four years, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts - In the present case, reopening is sought to be done beyond four years. In the present case, the assessee had filed its annual report before the Assessing Officer indicating spread over of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months. The Assessing Officer acted on that report by granting deduction to the extent of Rs. 33,40,818 for the year ending March 31,1996. In the circumstances, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment of income for the assessment year 1996-97 based on VRS expenses deduction claimed under section 37.
Interpretation of the proviso to section 147 regarding reopening of assessments after four years.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to notice under section 148 for reassessment based on VRS expenses deduction claimed under section 37

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment of income for the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the VRS expenses deduction claimed by the petitioner, leading to the dispute. The Assessing Officer contended that the entire VRS expense of Rs. 10,02,23,735 should not have been claimed in one year as it was spread over 60 months. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that there was no enduring benefit accruing over five years. The Assessing Officer argued that the expenditure was capital in nature and should not have been spread over five years. The court examined the reasons for reopening the assessment and found no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that reopening after four years requires the Assessing Officer to have a reason to believe that income escaped assessment due to failure to disclose all material facts, which was not the case here. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the judgment in a similar case applied to the present situation.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the proviso to section 147 regarding reopening of assessments after four years

The court referred to the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, which restricts the reopening of assessments after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. The court emphasized that in cases of reopening after four years, the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income escaped assessment due to such failure. The court rejected the argument that excessive relief granted could be a ground for reopening assessments after four years. It clarified that Explanation 2 to section 147 must be read in conjunction with the proviso, highlighting the requirement for the Assessing Officer to have a belief based on non-disclosure of material facts for reopening assessments after four years. In the present case, as the assessee had provided information on the spread of expenses over 60 months, there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the court held that the proviso to section 147 applied, and the reopening of assessment beyond four years was not justified.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice under section 148 for reassessment of income for the assessment year 1996-97.