2018 (2) TMI 1835 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - notice issued beyond period of four years - eligible reason to believe - HELD THAT - When the assessment is already completed under Section 143(3) or under Section 147 of the Act, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no actions can be taken under Section 147 unless income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because of failure of the assessee to file return under Section 139 or in response to notice issued under Section 142(1) or 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. It appears that during the course of original assessment proceedings, assessee has furnished details. The reasons recorded are totally silent in respect of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. If we peruse the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it reveals that at the time of recording of these reasons, Assessing Officer had examined original assessment records and no fresh material was found by him. Therefore, it can be said that the concerned Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on the basis of the same fact of materials and records which were available at the time of framing of original assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice for reopening assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 based on marketing expenses in foreign currency.

Analysis:
1. Reopening of Assessment: The petitioner, a company engaged in pharmaceutical products trading, challenged a notice for reopening the assessment for the year 2010-2011. The respondent Assessing Officer issued the notice based on marketing expenses paid in foreign currency during the previous year. The petitioner had filed the original return with audited accounts and records, which were duly processed and scrutinized before the assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

2. Reasons for Reopening: The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the petitioner's marketing expenses, leading to the belief that income had been concealed. The petitioner objected to the notice, arguing that all relevant information was disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no failure on their part to disclose material facts. The respondent dismissed the objections, prompting the petitioner to file a petition challenging the notice.

3. Court Proceedings: The High Court heard arguments from both parties. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were based on already disclosed information, and there was no ground for reopening the assessment beyond four years. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that there was clear escapement of income due to the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

4. Legal Analysis: The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that for reopening assessments beyond four years, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Court referred to precedents to establish that both conditions of the Assessing Officer having a reason to believe income escaped assessment and such escapement being due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts must be satisfied for reopening beyond the four-year period.

5. Judgment: Considering the arguments and legal principles, the Court found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not meet the conditions required for reopening the assessment beyond four years. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2017 for reopening the assessment for the year 2010-2011 based on marketing expenses in foreign currency.