2015 (8) TMI 423 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - installation of the Rotary Printing Press was not completed in the assessment year 1982-1983 and that therefore, the investment allowance and depreciation granted in the assessment order was irregular - Held that - Facts are evident from the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, which show that on import of the machinery, using local labour, the assessee had installed it. To prove that the Press was installed and commissioned, the assessee had produced before the Assessing Officer a bill issued it for undertaking printing work. However, the Assessing Officer declined to act upon that bill stating that it lacked any evidentiary value. The reason for such conclusion was that it was issued to a related company. On this aspect, the Tribunal has rightly held that in the absence of any other justifiable vitiating circumstances, the Assessing Officer was wrong in declining to accept the bill produced by the assessee. We fully agree with the Tribunal on this finding. This therefore, shows that the fundamental basis on which the assessment was re- opened itself was untenable. If that be so, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner setting aside Annexure - A, the re-opened assessment order issued for the assessment year 1982-1983. Such being the case, we do not see any question of law arising in this appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging ITAT order.
2. Claim of investment allowance and depreciation.
3. Disallowance of revenue expenditure.
4. Re-opening of assessment for the year 1982-1983.
5. Validity of the assessment re-opening.
6. Acceptance of evidence by the Assessing Officer.
7. Tribunal's decision on the assessment order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the ITAT order in relation to the assessment year 1982-1983. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the assessment order.

2. The assessee had imported a Rotary Printing Press and claimed investment allowance and depreciation in the assessment year 1982-1983, which was initially allowed by the Assessing Officer. However, in the subsequent year, a deduction claimed as revenue expenditure was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, leading to the re-opening of the assessment for the year 1982-1983.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held the expenditure to be capital in nature as the installation was not completed in the previous assessment year. This decision led to the re-opening of the assessment, resulting in the withdrawal of the investment allowance and depreciation granted initially.

4. The assessment for the year 1982-1983 was re-opened based on the premise that the installation of the Rotary Printing Press was incomplete in that year, rendering the investment allowance and depreciation irregular.

5. The High Court analyzed the evidence presented, including a bill issued for undertaking printing work to prove installation and commissioning of the press. The Assessing Officer had rejected the bill as lacking evidentiary value since it was issued to a related company. However, the Tribunal found the rejection unjustified, as there were no other vitiating circumstances, leading to the conclusion that the assessment re-opening was unwarranted.

6. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the re-opened assessment order for the year 1982-1983, as the fundamental basis for re-opening the assessment was found to be untenable. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that no question of law arose in the appeal.

7. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue failed, and the High Court dismissed it accordingly, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the assessment order for the year 1982-1983.

← Previous Next →