2016 (9) TMI 1644 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopning of assessment - Reopening beyond period of four years - Disallowance of provision towards warranty expenses and set off of brought forward losses of amalgamating company - HELD THAT - Reopening of assessment originally completed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration without pointing out specifically in the reasons recorded that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is bad in law and the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 in pursuance thereof is liable to be cancelled on this ground also. We accordingly cancel the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 holding the same as bad in law and allow the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment made under section 143(3)/147.
2. Disallowance of provision towards warranty expenses.
3. Set off of brought forward losses of the amalgamating company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Made Under Section 143(3)/147:
The primary issue in the Cross Objection was the validity of the assessment made under section 143(3)/147. The assessee argued that the assessment was reopened based on the same records available during the original assessment, implying a mere change of opinion. The assessee cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, which held that reopening on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. Additionally, the reopening occurred after four years from the end of the assessment year without pointing out any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, violating the first proviso to section 147. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the reopening was based on the same material and no new tangible material had come to the Assessing Officer's possession. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid, and the assessment made under section 143(3)/147 was cancelled.

2. Disallowance of Provision Towards Warranty Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for provision towards warranty expenses amounting to Rs.17,66,700/-, arguing that provisions are not allowable unless crystallized. The ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted this addition, allowing the entire provision as an allowable expense. However, given the Tribunal's decision on the preliminary issue, this matter became infructuous and was not adjudicated upon.

3. Set Off of Brought Forward Losses of the Amalgamating Company:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the set off of brought forward losses amounting to Rs.78,83,300/- from the amalgamating company, M/s. Bhartia International Limited, on the grounds that the amalgamating company was not engaged in manufacturing for three years or more and did not furnish the requisite certificate in Form No. 62. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the assessee's submissions and deleted this addition. Similar to the warranty expenses issue, this matter also became infructuous due to the Tribunal's decision on the validity of the assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal cancelled the assessment made under section 143(3)/147, holding it invalid due to reopening based on a mere change of opinion and failure to meet the requirements of the first proviso to section 147. Consequently, the issues regarding the disallowance of provision towards warranty expenses and set off of brought forward losses became infructuous, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed while the Cross Objection of the assessee was allowed.