2007 (5) TMI 107 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment - Revenue aggrieved with the tribunal decision which favour non-taxability of waived interest claimed by assessee and demand for reopening of assessment - Held that the decision of tribunal was correct and reassessment not allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 1993-94 based on waiver of interest not offered to tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The Assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94, declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act in 1995 but later sought to reopen it in 2000 to tax the waiver of interest not previously offered to tax.

2. The Assessee faced financial problems, took term loans from banks and institutions, and did not pay interest, leading to negotiations where outstanding interest was converted into a "Funded Interest Term Loan" for the assessment year 1993-94.

3. The Assessee claimed that the waiver of funded interest was not taxable under Section 41(1) of the Act in the original return, citing it as a capital receipt. The Assessee argued against the reopening, stating that all relevant facts were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the Assessee's appeal, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, concluding that there was a full and true disclosure by the Assessee, making the case a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.

5. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act, citing case law on the applicability of a change of opinion in assessment matters.

6. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had disclosed all relevant material facts during the original assessment, and since the Assessing Officer did not record a finding on the waiver of interest, reopening the assessment was unwarranted, considering it a case of change of opinion.

7. Referring to conflicting judgments, the Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and upheld the Full Bench's decision in a previous case, stating that if the Assessing Officer considered all material and did not record a finding, it should not lead to reopening the assessment based on a change of opinion.

8. The Court highlighted that the Assessee's lack of control over the assessment order drafting process and the general practice of mentioning only disputed points in the order supported the view that a full and true disclosure by the Assessee should prevent unwarranted reopening of assessments.

9. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law, and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the case was one of a mere change of opinion, not justifying the reopening of the Assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1993-94.