2015 (10) TMI 1468 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that - Now the settled position of law is that once the Assessing Officer is failed to make an addition on an issue on which assessment was reopened, he cannot assess or reassess other income which escaped assessment and came to his notice during the course of hearing. In the instant case, undisputedly no income was assessed on the capital gain which was considered to be escaped assessment while reopening the assessment. Therefore, addition made on other issues on which assessment was not reopened is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the additions made on other issues. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment due to reopening of assessment under section 147 without making any addition.
2. Addition of Cartage of Bricks under section 69C of the I.T. Act.
3. Disallowance under sections 37/40A(2)(b) and 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act.
4. Addition under section 40a(ia) and 37 r.w. 40A(2)(b) without notice.
5. Excessive additions without proper opportunity for defense.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the validity of the assessment due to reopening under section 147 without any addition being made on the issue for which the assessment was reopened. The appellant contended that the assessment framed after reopening was not sustainable as no addition was made under the head of capital gain on the sale of fixed assets, for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements and held that if no addition is made on the issue for which the assessment was reopened, then adding on other issues not reopened is not permissible. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the additions made on other issues.

Issue 2:
The appellant contested the addition of Cartage of Bricks under section 69C of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue specifically in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the validity of the assessment and the subsequent additions made.

Issue 3:
The appellant raised concerns regarding disallowances under sections 37/40A(2)(b) and 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act after the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of sales. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue separately as the main contention regarding the validity of the assessment and subsequent additions was upheld in favor of the appellant.

Issue 4:
The appellant challenged the addition under section 40a(ia) and 37 r.w. 40A(2)(b) without a notice being issued. However, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and delete the additions made on other issues encompassed this challenge as well, as it was part of the broader assessment validity issue.

Issue 5:
The appellant argued that the additions upheld were excessive, contrary to facts and law, and deprived them of sufficient time to present their case. The Tribunal, by allowing the appeal and setting aside the additions made on issues not reopened during the assessment, addressed this concern indirectly by providing relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of not making additions on issues for which assessments were reopened if no additions were made on those specific issues. This judgment emphasizes the need for assessments to be conducted within the boundaries of the law and ensures that taxpayers are not unfairly burdened with excessive additions without proper justification.

← Previous Next →