2011 (3) TMI 619 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment - Income escaping assessment - Scrutiny - Capital or revenue expenditure - Interest is on account of delayed payment of acquisition cost of ongoing concern - It is also seen from Annexure 13 to Tax Audit Report that the assessee company is following exclusive method of accounting for CENVAT/MOCVAT credit in the books of accounts and is also not considering for valuation of inventory - There were no new facts before the Assessing Officer which could justify the reopening - Held that it is tax neutral and, unless the condition of satisfaction about income having escaped assessment is satisfied, there cannot be any reopening of assessment - Decided in the favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Admittance of additional ground of appeal challenging jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 based on reasons provided by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Admittance of Additional Ground of Appeal
The Appellate Tribunal considered the assessee's application for an additional ground of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the ground pertained to a pure question of law and relied on legal precedents to support the admissibility of such a ground. The Departmental Representative opposed the admission, stating that the assessee bypassed raising the grievance before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The Tribunal, after considering submissions, admitted the additional ground of appeal as it challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction, and the assessee's failure to raise it earlier did not preclude its consideration.

Issue 2: Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 147
The Tribunal examined the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147. The reasons included issues related to interest deduction, valuation adjustments, and unutilized credits. The assessee contended that all relevant facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer had not made any disallowances. The Departmental Representative argued that the absence of a decision by the Assessing Officer indicated no change of opinion had occurred. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, emphasized that a reassessment must be based on tangible material and not a mere change of opinion. It concluded that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not sustainable in law and quashed the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the additions made during the reassessment were deemed academic, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and dismissal of the Assessing Officer's appeal as infructuous.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Mumbai, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues of admitting an additional ground of appeal challenging jurisdiction under section 147 and the validity of reopening the assessment based on reasons provided by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it raised a legal question, and subsequently, it found the reasons for reopening the assessment to be unsustainable in law, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. The judgment resulted in the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the dismissal of the Assessing Officer's appeal as infructuous.