9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on MS Rolls leased to BSAL. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment, arguing that all material facts were available in the originally filed return and that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, citing new information from a survey under section 133A at BSAL's premises, which revealed that the MS Rolls given on lease by the appellant company to BSAL were not existing. The CIT(A) noted that the original assessment was under section 143(1), meaning the Assessing Officer did not form any opinion during the initial processing. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the reopening was justified under Explanation 2(b) of section 147, as no assessment under section 143(3) had been made, and the information warranted the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal noted that the case laws cited by the assessee were not applicable as they involved reassessments initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. Disallowance of Depreciation on MS Rolls Leased to BSAL: The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on MS Rolls leased to BSAL, citing several discrepancies found during the survey and subsequent investigations, including the absence of written orders, delivery challans without sales tax check post seals, and the denial by transporters of transporting the rolls. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the lease transaction and the absence of opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine the persons who provided adverse statements. During the Tribunal proceedings, the assessee argued that the discrepancies were to be explained by KMFL, from whom the rolls were acquired under hire purchase. The assessee also contended that the assets were identifiable and that the disallowance was based on surmises and suspicion. The Tribunal noted that the original documents should have been available with BSAL, and the absence of these documents at the time of the survey could not be held against the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity for cross-examination and that the evidence suggested the assets were identifiable at BSAL's premises. The Tribunal also considered the financial aspects of the transactions, noting that the total lease rental was less than the amount advanced for acquiring the asset, indicating an operational lease rather than a financial lease. The Tribunal pointed out that the revenue had taxed the lease rentals in subsequent years and had not allowed deductions for hire purchase payments, suggesting inconsistency in the revenue's stance. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on the leased assets, as the assets were identifiable, and the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had capitalized the finance charges and sales tax, making the alternative ground of appeal regarding the allowance of these charges infructuous. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the reopening of the assessment was valid, but the disallowance of depreciation on the leased assets was not justified. The appellant was entitled to claim depreciation on the MS Rolls leased to BSAL.
|
