9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1008 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - non furnishing of reasons to believe - Held that - Undisputable facts on record establish beyond doubt that the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were never furnished to the assessee by the Assessing Officer before completion of the assessment proceedings on 29/12/2008, 33 months after the request was made by the assessee by letter dated 16/4/2007. The subsequent furnishing of the reasons recorded to the assessee by the learned CIT(A) by letter dated 28/1/2010 does not achieve any purpose or mitigate the illegality of the action of depriving the assessee its right to raise objections against the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we hold that the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) rws 148 of the Act dated 29/12/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 without the Assessing Officer furnishing the recorded reasons for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act to the assessee within reasonable time and prior to the completion of the assessment proceedings, renders this order of assessment invalid and unsustainable in law.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of total income and associated demands. 3. Classification of receipts from Indian customers as royalty. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue was whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 were valid. The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons for initiating these proceedings were not furnished by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment process. The Tribunal noted that the reasons were only provided during the appellate proceedings, which was against the settled position of law. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v ITO, which mandates that the AO must furnish the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to provide these reasons during the assessment process rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. Determination of total income and associated demands: The AO had determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 7,47,22,046 and levied income tax and interest accordingly. However, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of these determinations. 3. Classification of receipts from Indian customers as royalty: The AO and CIT(A) had classified the payments received by the assessee from Indian customers as 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Ireland. The assessee contended that these payments did not qualify as 'royalty' under the relevant provisions and judicial precedents. However, since the reassessment proceedings were invalidated, the Tribunal did not address the merits of this classification. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234A of the Income Tax Act: The AO had levied interest under sections 234B and 234A. The assessee sought relief from these levies. Given the quashing of the reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the interest levies. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee argued that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue due to the invalidation of the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the order of assessment dated 29/12/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06, deeming it invalid and unsustainable in law due to the AO's failure to furnish the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the other issues raised in the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
|
