2014 (8) TMI 1215 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - CIT issued 263 show cause notice on 13.3.2014. It transpires that the CIT s show cause notice is not within two years from assessment order dated 28.12.2006. It does not satisfy the basic condition stipulated in section 263(2) of the Act which envisages that no order u/s 263(1) shall be made after the expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. We draw support from case law CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 2012 (2) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein similar facts and circumstances are involved as reopening in question did not contain the issue raised in section 263 proceedings. Therefore, we hold that the CIT s assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the CIT s order is not sustainable. As we have accepted the assessee s grounds on legality itself, we do not deem it appropriate to deal with the merits involved in this appeal. Assessee s appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment year 2004-05 - Reopening of regular assessment - Deduction claim of non-recoverable investments - Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Time limit for revision under section 263(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Year 2004-05 and Reopening of Regular Assessment:
The appellant, a bank, filed its return for assessment year 2004-05 admitting income under normal provisions and book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer made various disallowances/additions in the regular assessment but did not disallow the deduction claim of non-recoverable investments, resulting in a total taxable income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment, focusing on the taxable surplus from a merger and prior period expenses. The reassessment was framed without making any additions, leading to the Commissioner forming an opinion that the regular assessment was erroneous.

2. Deduction Claim of Non-Recoverable Investments:
The core issue revolved around the deduction claim of &8377; 72.75 crores as losses from non-recoverable investments. The CIT contended that the deduction was not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as the investments were primarily held to maturity, not for trading. The CIT proposed to revise the assessment under section 263, citing lack of proper inquiry and examination of the claim during both the original and reassessment proceedings.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act:
The CIT issued a show cause notice under section 263, proposing to set aside the reassessment order and conduct a denovo assessment. The CIT emphasized the necessity of examining crucial aspects related to the claim, such as whether the loss was due to amalgamation or normal business operations. The failure to conduct proper inquiries was deemed as an error causing prejudice to the revenue, justifying the revision under section 263.

4. Time Limit for Revision under Section 263(1) of the Act:
In the final judgment, it was highlighted that the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was beyond the two-year time limit specified in the Act. Citing case law, it was concluded that the show cause notice was issued after the expiry of the stipulated time frame, rendering the CIT's order unsustainable. As a result, the appeal was allowed based on the grounds of legality, without delving into the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the assessment for the year 2004-05, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and conducting thorough inquiries to uphold the principles of the Income-tax Act.