2012 (7) TMI 374 - HC - Income Tax

Quashing the initiating proceedings u/s. 147 - Revenue appeal - Held that - The reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 clearly indicates that there was no new material which had come to the notice of the AO so as to lead to a reasonable belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment - order passed originally u/s 143(3) was passed after the respondent had made adhoc claim for expenditure at 30% of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002-03 itself records that the the claim of 30% adhoc expenses was withdrawn when the respondent assessee was asked to substantiate the claim - no basis for the Assessing Officers to form a belief that income has escaped assessment - against revenue.

Issues:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03.
3. Assessment based on withdrawn claim of adhoc expenses.
4. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings.
5. Existence of fresh tangible material for reassessment.
6. Legal position regarding review under the guise of reassessment.

Issue 1: Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147:
The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2002-03 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that there was no new material to support a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The adhoc expenses claimed by the respondent were previously considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no fresh tangible material for the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147.

Issue 2: Justification for reopening the assessment:
The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03 based on various reasons, including unexplained expenses and issues related to bank accounts and investments. The subsequent assessment resulted in the addition of unexplained expenses to the respondent's income. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) set aside the reassessment order, stating that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 as the material for reassessment was available during the original assessment.

Issue 3: Assessment based on withdrawn claim of adhoc expenses:
The respondent initially filed a revised return claiming adhoc expenses at 30% of professional receipts. However, this claim was later withdrawn before the completion of the assessment. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03, considering the withdrawn claim and determining the respondent's income accordingly.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal both concluded that there was no fresh tangible material before the Assessing Officer to justify reopening the assessment. The original assessment order already addressed the issues related to the withdrawn claim of adhoc expenses, and the same material was considered during the initial assessment proceedings.

Issue 5: Existence of fresh tangible material for reassessment:
The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings did not reveal any new material that could lead to a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment. The withdrawn claim of adhoc expenses was previously examined during the original assessment, and no additional tangible material was presented to warrant reassessment.

Issue 6: Legal position regarding review under the guise of reassessment:
The judgment highlighted that reassessment cannot be used as a tool for review, especially when there is no fresh material to support the belief of income escaping assessment. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the original assessment order was based on the lack of new tangible material justifying reassessment.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →