2010 (3) TMI 709 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment Reassessment beyond 4 years condition precedent Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment Assessee carrying on Life Insurance business Accounts maintained in accordance with statutory provisions change in statutory provision and consequent change in accounting method facts disclosed to assessing officer Reassessment proceedings after 4 ear on ground of that method of accounting was incorrect, not valid

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessments for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05.
2. Validity of the reasons for reopening the assessments.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Disclosure of material facts by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessments for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05:

The petitioner, engaged in life insurance, contested the reopening of assessments for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. For 2002-03 and 2003-04, the reopening was beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, while for 2004-05, it was within four years.

2. Validity of the Reasons for Reopening the Assessments:

The Assessing Officer (AO) sought to reopen the assessments on the grounds that the income of the life insurance business, as per the actuarial valuation in Form I, showed a nil surplus/deficit, whereas the petitioner reported a loss. The AO claimed that the petitioner filed an incorrect computation of total income.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

Section 147 mandates that for reopening an assessment beyond four years, there must be a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court examined whether there was such a failure by the petitioner.

4. Disclosure of Material Facts by the Assessee:

The petitioner disclosed the deficit in the policyholders' account and the internal transfer from the shareholders' account to make up for this deficit. The petitioner provided detailed explanations and clarifications during the original assessment proceedings. The court found that the petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment.

Judgment Analysis:

Reopening Beyond Four Years (Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04):

The court held that the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment. The computation of income and the internal transfer of funds were clearly explained to the AO. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Therefore, the condition precedent for reopening the assessments beyond four years was not fulfilled. The notices for reopening the assessments for these years were quashed.

Reopening Within Four Years (Assessment Year 2004-05):

For the assessment year 2004-05, the court examined whether there was any tangible material before the AO to form a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court found that the AO had merely changed his opinion based on the same facts that were already considered during the original assessment. There was no new tangible material to justify the reopening. The reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law as established in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561. Therefore, the notice for reopening the assessment for 2004-05 was also quashed.

Conclusion:

The court quashed all the notices under section 148 for reopening the assessments for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts, and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →