2011 (9) TMI 592 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reassessment under 147 - Change of opinion - Held That - When the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) by considering the concerned matter and it was again made it clear during the course of proceedings initiated u/s 154, the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 on this issue is not only unjustified rather illegal and is against the natural law. Deduction of Interest Income - Assessee Exporter - Bank Guarantee for executing order - Margin Money with Bank - Held That - Deposits were exclusively for Business purpose thus entitled for deduction under 80HHC. Assessment under 147 - Disclosure of facts - When photocopies of banker‟s certificate confirming margin money has been kept shall be deemed that facts have been fully discussed during the course of Asstt. Proceedings now merely on the change of opinion as decided by Delhi High Court and Supreme Court given above an initiation of proceedings deserves to be withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of notice under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated by the Assessing Officer. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exports of garments, filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2001-02. The assessment was completed, and later, the assessment was sought to be reopened by the AO through a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant objected to the notice, but the objection was rejected, leading to a reassessment that included additional amounts in the calculation under Section 80HHC of the Act. The appellant appealed to the CIT (A) and then to the Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeal but upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148. The appellant contended that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion and not based on new material.

The validity of the notice under Section 148 was crucial, as it was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Proviso to Section 147 requires the AO to demonstrate that income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case included discrepancies in foreign exchange receipts and interest income, alleging excess allowance of deduction under Section 80HHC. However, the appellant had provided detailed explanations during the original assessment proceedings, which the AO failed to consider. The Tribunal, while upholding the validity of the reassessment, ignored the appellant's full disclosure of material facts.

The appellant's detailed responses to the queries raised during the assessment showed a comprehensive disclosure of relevant information. The Tribunal's failure to consider this disclosure led the Court to conclude that the reassessment was unjustified. The Court held that the AO's failure to inquire from a particular angle did not warrant reopening the assessment. The Court emphasized that the appellant had furnished all necessary details, and the reassessment was merely based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reassessment proceedings, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Court found that the reassessment proceedings were unwarranted as the appellant had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the validity of the notice under Section 148 was deemed incorrect, and the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the reassessment proceedings.