9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 717 - HC - Income TaxAddition - escaped assessment u/s 148 - whether preconditions for reopening of assessment as stipulated under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied in the present case - the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings had not examined and gone into the direct expenditure/costs incurred of Rs.1,14,29,03,442/- and, therefore, the reopening of assessment is justified. It is pointed out that this is not the reason for reopening mentioned by the Assessing Officer. The reasons for reopening have to stand on their legs and cannot be substantiated for reasons and grounds which are not mentioned therein - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Alleged change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. 3. Adequacy of reasons recorded for reopening assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in the writ petition was whether the preconditions for reopening the assessment as stipulated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were satisfied. The petitioner argued that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked tangible material. The court emphasized that the reopening of assessment must be justified by new, tangible material indicating that income had escaped assessment. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that "mere change of opinion" cannot justify reopening an assessment under Section 147. 2. Alleged Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer: The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, as the method of accounting adopted by the petitioner had been scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment proceedings. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the method of accounting was clearly explained in the petitioner's letter dated 31st October 2008, and was considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The court reiterated that a change of opinion does not constitute a valid ground for reopening an assessment, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelvinator case. 3. Adequacy of Reasons Recorded for Reopening Assessment: The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were scrutinized. The Assessing Officer had noted discrepancies in the income reported in foreign currency and the income shown in the Profit & Loss account. However, the court found the reasoning to be laconic and sketchy, failing to address the petitioner's contentions adequately. The court held that the recorded reasons did not provide a sufficient basis for reopening the assessment, as they related to the fundamental nature of the accounting method, which had already been examined during the original assessment. Conclusion: The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of new, tangible material and the fact that it was based on a change of opinion. The impugned notice dated 17th February 2010, under Section 148 of the Act, and the order dated 1st November 2010, were quashed. The reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was declared null and void. However, the court clarified that this order would not bar the Assessing Officer from recording fresh reasons and reopening the assessment in accordance with the law. Final Orders: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice and reassessment order were quashed. The court did not issue any orders as to costs.
|
