2015 (11) TMI 1063 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - disallowance of 30% of the expenditure - Held that - Reopening of assessment in the impugned years 2002-03 to 2005-06 are bad in law as there being no nexus or live-link with the reasons recorded and the formation of belief to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income and also since the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts in the original assessment itself, and there being no tangible material for the reopening of the assessment, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. The issues considering the merits are purely academic in nature and therefore it is not necessary to consider the disallowance of expenditure in the impugned assessment years. The orders of AO and CIT(A) are accordingly set aside. For AY. 2007-08 except car hire charges, which has increased more than 100% and professional charges and reimbursement of professional charges, all other charges are more or less commensurate with the expenditure in earlier years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the expenditure cannot be disallowed on adhoc basis as far as these other expenditures are concerned. Car hire charges, the same has been increased from ₹ 78,580/- in earlier year to ₹ 1,99,933/-. The reasons were not explained and in the absence of any vouchers, we are of the opinion that 20% of the car hire charges can be disallowed. Professional charges and reimbursement of expenses to consultants, there is also manifold increase in this expenditure. Whether the amounts were covered by provisions of TDS or not could not be verified in the absence of any details. Moreover, justification for payment of professional charges was also not available on record. In the absence of any justification of expenditure claims and further in the absence of books of accounts available at this point of time, we are of the opinion that disallowance of 10% of expenditure would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the disallowance stands modified as directed above. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessments for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06.
2. Disallowance of 30% of expenditure in all impugned assessment years.
3. Levy of interest (Ground No. 8).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessments for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06:
The assessee contested the reopening of assessments, arguing that it was done without any belief that incomes had escaped assessment. Notices under section 148 were issued beyond the period of four years for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06. The assessee highlighted that there was no allegation of manipulation of its books of accounts. The statement by the Ex-Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. did not implicate the assessee in any wrongdoing. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on the statement of Shri Ramalinga Raju, which did not provide a tangible basis for reopening the assessments. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where the reopening was held to be bad in law due to a lack of nexus between the reasons recorded and the formation of belief. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of assessments for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06 was bad in law due to the absence of tangible material and failure to establish a live link between the reasons recorded and the belief of income escapement. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the issue of reopening.

2. Disallowance of 30% of Expenditure:
The assessee argued that the disallowance of 30% of expenditure was unwarranted, especially since similar expenditures were allowed in original assessments for AYs 2002-03 to 2004-05. For AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, the assessee pointed out that the AO had accepted the expenditure claims in AY 2006-07 after reopening under section 148. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made without examining the nature of the expenditure. Specific examples, such as audit fees and service charges paid to the government, were highlighted to show the arbitrary nature of the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the disallowance lacked rationale and was made on an ad hoc basis. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal modified the disallowance, allowing most expenditures except for car hire charges and professional charges, where a partial disallowance was deemed reasonable due to a significant increase in these expenses without adequate justification. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2007-08, modifying the disallowance as directed.

3. Levy of Interest (Ground No. 8):
The issue of levy of interest was contested by the assessee but was not elaborately discussed in the judgment. Given the Tribunal's decision on the primary issues of reopening and disallowance, the matter of interest became secondary and was not separately adjudicated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06, holding that the reopening of assessments was bad in law. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the disallowance of expenditure. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside accordingly. The judgment emphasizes the need for a tangible basis and a clear nexus between recorded reasons and the formation of belief for reopening assessments.