9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 52 - AT - Income TaxReassessment u/s 10 of Interest Tax Act,1974 (corresponding to sec. 147 of IT Act) - Chargeable Interest- Business of Finance- Hire-purchase agreement-validity of reassessment proceedings. - Interest Tax - Held that - the assessment for the year under consideration was reopened within four years after recording reasons, in writing, on the basis of findings of the ITAT in their order dated 14.8.2003 and only thereafter notice u/s 10 of the Act was issued on 13.11.2003. Since the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee did not make any further submissions before us not disputed the findings of ld. CIT(A) on the validity of reopening of the assessment in the year under consideration, there is no material before us to take a different view in the matter. - Decided in favor of revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 10 of the Interest Tax Act. 2. Treatment of hire charges as interest chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. 3. Consideration of hire purchase transactions as financing transactions. 4. Adherence to the Supreme Court's guidelines in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Others. 5. Applicability of previous ITAT and Supreme Court decisions to the case. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 10 of the Interest Tax Act: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Interest Tax Act for initiating reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's assumption of jurisdiction, noting that the AO had issued the notice within four years from the end of the assessment year. The CIT(A) referred to the decisions in ITO vs. Saradbhai M. Lakhani, Syal Leasing Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO to conclude that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO had recorded reasons in writing and issued the notice within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed ground nos. 1 to 4, upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 2. Treatment of Hire Charges as Interest Chargeable under the Interest Tax Act: The assessee argued that the hire charges should not be treated as interest chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. The AO, relying on previous decisions, brought the hire charges receipt of Rs. 3,09,86,822/- to tax as chargeable interest. The CIT(A) upheld this treatment, following the ITAT Agra Bench's decision, which concluded that the assessee was engaged in financing business and advancing loans on interest, not hire purchase transactions. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A), noting no contrary decisions or material presented by the assessee, and dismissed ground nos. 5 to 14, affirming the treatment of hire charges as chargeable interest. 3. Consideration of Hire Purchase Transactions as Financing Transactions: The CIT(A) and ITAT found that the transactions were in the nature of loans rather than hire purchase. The vehicles involved were registered in the names of the so-called hirers, and the purchase bills were also in their names. The ITAT noted that the vehicles were directly delivered to the hirers by the dealers, and the hirers paid for the road tax and insurance premiums. The ITAT concluded that the transactions were essentially financing transactions, with the hire purchase agreements and other documents executed merely to secure the loans advanced by the assessee company. 4. Adherence to the Supreme Court's Guidelines in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Others: The assessee argued that the AO did not dispose of the objections against the reassessment proceedings as required by the Supreme Court's guidelines in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Others. The CIT(A) found that the assessee's submission did not contain specific objections against the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the objections were submitted at the end of the limitation period for completing the assessment, and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 5. Applicability of Previous ITAT and Supreme Court Decisions to the Case: The CIT(A) and ITAT relied on previous decisions, including the ITAT Agra Bench's decision and the Supreme Court's decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd., to conclude that the transactions were financing transactions. The ITAT noted that the facts of the case were similar to those in the previous decisions, where the transactions were found to be in the nature of loans rather than hire purchase. The ITAT dismissed the assessee's reliance on other decisions, finding them not applicable to the facts of the case. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the reassessment proceedings under Section 10 of the Interest Tax Act and the treatment of hire charges as chargeable interest. The ITAT found that the transactions were financing transactions, and the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment. The ITAT also concluded that the assessee's objections were not specific and were submitted late, and that the previous decisions relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case.
|
