9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 517 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Held that - Audit party has not pointed out any factual error or omission but has expressed the opinion on the analysis of the balance sheet of one of the two concerns of the assessee that the interest paid by the assessee needs to be disallowed because the borrowed funds were diverted by providing interest free loans to others. The audit objection is based upon the legal opinion expressed by them and not pointing out any factual error or omission and, therefore, on these facts, the decision of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 160 - DELHI HIGH COURT) in the case of Air India (1994 (10) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and of Indian Eastern and Newspaper Society (1979 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) would be applicable as no opersiion has been pointed but only legal opinion given thus to hold that the reopening of assessment was not valid. The same is quashed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 3. Reliance on audit objections for reopening assessment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment: The primary issue raised by the assessee in the cross-objection was the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that all relevant particulars were disclosed in the return of income, and the reopening was based solely on audit objections, which is not a valid ground for reassessment. The assessee cited several precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court decisions, to support their contention that reassessment based on audit objections is invalid. 2. Independent Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer: The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind while reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening were identical to the audit objections, indicating a lack of independent analysis. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer merely followed the audit objections without verifying the facts independently. This was further substantiated by the fact that the assessment order did not make any additions or disallowances based on the reasons for reopening, which questioned the validity of the reassessment process. 3. Reliance on Audit Objections for Reopening Assessment: The Revenue argued that the reopening was valid as the Assessing Officer agreed with the audit objections and recorded the same as reasons for reopening. However, the Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded were a verbatim copy of the audit objections, indicating no independent application of mind. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT, where it was held that the opinion of an internal audit party on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" for reopening an assessment. Judicial Precedents and Legal Position: The Tribunal analyzed various judicial precedents to determine the validity of reopening based on audit objections. It cited the following key decisions: - Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT: The Supreme Court held that the opinion of an internal audit party on a point of law is not "information" for reopening an assessment. - Air India vs. V.K. Srivastava: The Bombay High Court ruled that reopening based on audit objections is without jurisdiction. - P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: The Supreme Court allowed reopening based on factual errors pointed out by the audit party, but not on legal opinions. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not valid as it was based solely on the audit objections without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment, allowing the cross-objection of the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Final Judgment: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed, resulting in the quashing of the reopening of the assessment.
|
