2014 (11) TMI 353 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 Notice issued beyond four years as provided u/s 148 Permissibility od deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IB - Held that - The Tribunal rightly found that on both counts the Revenue has failed to satisfy them that the assessment could have been reopened - notice u/s 148 of the Act is after 4 years from the end of relevant AY 2003-04 - The ground raised is that the deduction has been granted under both section 80HHC and 80IB and which is impermissible the findings cannot be be treated as vitiated by perversity or any error of law apparent on the face of the record as such no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Reopening of assessment under section 147 after 4 years, validity of grounds for reassessment, deduction under sections 80HHC and 80IB, failure to disclose material facts, perversity in findings, dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:

Reopening of assessment under section 147 after 4 years:
The case involved the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after more than 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to justify the reopening within the specified time limit. The notice under section 148 was issued after the 4-year period, and the reasons provided were insufficient to support the reassessment. The Tribunal upheld the objection of the Assessee, emphasizing the importance of complying with the statutory time limits for reopening assessments.

Validity of grounds for reassessment:
The Assessee had claimed deductions under sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that granting deductions under both sections was impermissible. However, both the Commissioner and the Tribunal found that this ground was not valid in the given circumstances. It was established that the Assessee had not failed to file a return or disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The findings of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were deemed sound, and the Court dismissed the appeal based on the lack of substantial legal questions.

Failure to disclose material facts and perversity in findings:
The judgment highlighted that there was no failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose all material facts required for assessment. The Court determined that the findings of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were not tainted by perversity or legal errors. It was emphasized that the Assessee was not assisted by the Court in its appellate jurisdiction due to the absence of fresh objections that the Assessing Officer had not addressed previously. The judgment distinguished a prior case where the notice to reopen was not considered jurisdictionally flawed, further supporting the decision to dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as it did not raise any substantial question of law. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for reassessment and the necessity of valid grounds to support such actions. The Assessee's objection was upheld based on the lack of merit in the Revenue's contentions regarding deductions and the timing of the reassessment notice.