2013 (12) TMI 897 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 147 - Held that - The AO in this case had reopened the assessment on three different grounds - The AO in the reasons recorded has not mentioned anywhere regarding any facts being not disclosed truly and fully by the assessee - The AO had reopened the assessment only on account of retrospective amendment to the Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2) by the Finance Act 2009 with effect from 1.4.2001 - As per amendment any amount set aside as provision for diminition in the value of assets has to be added to book profit - The retrospective amendment no doubt can be made the basis for reopening of the assessment but in cases where assessment has already been made u/s 143(3) as in this case and four years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, reopening can be made only if there is failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts - The provisions for bad and doubtful debts have been added by the assessee in the computation of income under the normal provisions which is clear from the details of computation of income - AO was not required to discover it from examination of book of accounts - There was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts relating to provisions for bad and doubtful debts - Reopening on account of failure to add back the provisions to the book profit cannot be upheld. Deferred tax credit was because of reversal of provision made in earlier year, it was only an accounting entry and there was no real income and, therefore, it was reduced from the profit - The AO has reopened the assessment as per the subsequent amendment by the Finance Act 2008 w.e.f 1.4.2001 - Amount of deferred tax credited to the P&L Account is required to be reduced while computing the book profit in terms of clause (viii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) - The AO had reopened the assessment in 2010 when this particular provision was already on the statute - There was no escapement of income on this account and reopening based on this reason cannot be justified. Any income which is eligible for reduction u/s 10A is required to be reduced and expenses relating to such income are required to be added - Entire income which is eligible for exemption u/s 10A is required to be reduced and not only the income which is actually allowable as deduction u/s 10A - The assessee has acted clearly in accordance with provisions - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act.
2. Addition of provisions for bad and doubtful debts while computing book profit.
3. Addition of deferred tax income while computing book profit.
4. Income exempt under section 10A while computing book profit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The primary issue addressed was the legal validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act. The assessee had filed the return for the assessment year 2002-03, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 22.03.2006. The AO issued a notice under section 148 on 10.03.2010, after recording reasons for the escapement of income, which included the failure to add back provisions for doubtful debts and deferred tax assets, and the incorrect claim of exemption under section 10A. The assessee objected, arguing that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and that there was no failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal found that the AO had not mentioned any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts in the reasons recorded. It was noted that the reopening was based on retrospective amendments and not due to any new material facts. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was not justified, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

2. Addition of Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts:
The AO had added the provisions for bad and doubtful debts to the book profit based on the retrospective amendment to section 115JB. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed the provisions for bad and doubtful debts in the original return and had added them in the computation of income under normal provisions. It was concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose these facts, and thus, reopening on this ground was not justified.

3. Addition of Deferred Tax Income:
The AO had added the deferred tax income to the book profit, arguing that there was no provision for its reduction. The Tribunal noted that the deferred tax credit was due to the reversal of provisions made in earlier years and was an accounting entry with no real income. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was supported by a subsequent amendment, but since the amendment was already on the statute, there was no escapement of income on this account. Therefore, reopening based on this reason was not justified.

4. Income Exempt under Section 10A:
The AO had argued that the assessee incorrectly claimed the entire profit eligible for exemption under section 10A and did not restrict it to 49%. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly added the expenditure relating to the STPI unit and reduced the income of the STPI unit while computing the book profit. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had acted in accordance with the provisions, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment on this ground was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment made by the AO, holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment was quashed without delving into the merits of the case.