9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 479 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - lease equalisation charges, provision for nonperforming assets and provision for diminution in the value of investments - CIT(A) quashed reopening order - Held that - On the item of lease equalisation charges the Tribunal has decided the matter in favour of the assessee in assessment year 1997-98 in assessee s own case. Provision for nonperforming assets and provision for diminution in the value of investments - Held that - The reopening is on the basis of retrospective amendment made by Finance No. 2 Act, 2009 in section 115JA in respect to proposed additions on account of provisions for nonperforming assets and provisions for diminution in the value of investments. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue in view of the decision in the case of IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010 (6) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein it is observed that the reassessment based on retrospective amendment is bad in law. In the present case the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued prior to the amendment and once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee. The reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act has rightly been quashed by CIT(A) and we confirm the same. - Decided against revenue.
Issues involved:
Appeal against quashing of reassessment proceedings. Analysis: The appeal by Revenue challenges the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 1999-00. The reassessment was initiated by the Assessing Officer based on three main issues: lease equalisation charges, provision for non-performing assets (NPA), and provision for diminution in the value of investments. The CIT(A) found that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law, leading to the appeal by Revenue. The CIT(A) based the decision on various legal precedents, including the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, which emphasized the importance of providing reasons and passing a speaking order on objections in reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) highlighted that the reassessment was initiated on issues already covered in previous proceedings and that the retrospective amendment in section 115JA of the Act did not justify the reassessment. The CIT(A) referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support the decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the facts of the case. It noted that the reassessment was based on issues where previous decisions had favored the assessee, such as the lease equalisation charges and the retrospective amendment affecting provisions for NPAs and diminution in investments. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the reassessment was not valid under the law and confirmed the decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the appeal by Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) to quash the reassessment. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal aspects, including the retrospective amendments and previous court judgments, led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the quashing of the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 1999-00. The decision emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that reassessment is conducted in accordance with the law.
|
