2015 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening u/s 147 - proceedings initiated after the expiry of four years - Held that - Such an assessment is being sought to be reopened without their being any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose folly and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Even in the reason recorded , the assessing officer has not ascribed any failure on the part of the assessee as to what is the failure on the part of the assessee in making the full disclosure. If the assessee has made full disclosure as contemplated under the law then, it is upon the assessing officer to draw correct inference of law from the primary facts. Once there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts then, statute provides that no action can be taken for reopening the case beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, where order has been completed u/s 143(3). Reopening notice quashed - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening u/s 147 after the expiry of four years.
2. Disallowance u/s 14A.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software.

Validity of Reopening u/s 147:
The appeal was filed against the order for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee challenged the reopening under section 147, arguing it was bad in law due to being initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessing officer reopened the case based on interest accrued but not due on investments. The CIT(A) dismissed the contention, stating that there were sufficient reasons for the reopening. The assessee argued that all details were disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 143(3), and the reopening was done without any failure on the part of the assessee. As per the proviso to section 147, no action can be taken for reopening after four years if there is no failure to disclose all material facts. Thus, the Tribunal held the reopening was bad in law, quashed the assessment order, and allowed the appeal.

Disallowance u/s 14A:
The issue of disallowance under section 14A was raised in the appeal. However, due to the finding on the validity of the reopening under section 147, the Tribunal considered the other grounds on merits as purely academic. Therefore, no detailed analysis or decision was provided on the disallowance under section 14A.

Disallowance of Depreciation on Computer Software:
Similarly, the issue of disallowance of depreciation on computer software was raised in the appeal. However, since the Tribunal found the reopening under section 147 to be invalid, the other grounds on merits, including this issue, were not addressed in detail. The Tribunal treated the appeal as allowed based on the finding regarding the validity of the reopening.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the validity of the reopening under section 147, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the absence of any failure to disclose material facts. The other grounds related to disallowance under section 14A and depreciation on computer software were not extensively discussed due to the primary finding on the reopening issue.