9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1317 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Audit Objection relied upon - Held that - Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has mentioned which material facts necessary for the assessment of the assessee were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. There may be an Audit Objection raised by the Revenue Audit but even the Audit Objection itself is based on the material already available to the AO at the time when he passed assessment order dated 19.12.2007 u/s 143(3) of the Act/ Rectification order dated 10.03.2008 u/s 154 of the Act. It is not the case of the AO or the CIT(A) that the Audit Objection was based on any fresh material which was not already disclosed by the assessee. On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and on consideration of materials available on record, we do not find any fresh material, not already disclosed by the assessee that led to the objection raised by Revenue Audit or which resulted in initiation of re-assessment proceedings. Revenue has failed to make a case that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 and the initiation of reassessment proceedings. 2. Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring capital assets. 3. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB claimed on DEPB/DDB income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 and Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings: The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The original return was filed on 29.10.2005, and the assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 19.12.2007. A rectification order under section 154 was issued on 10.03.2008. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by a notice dated 29.03.2012, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. According to the proviso to section 147, reassessment cannot be initiated after four years unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer (AO) nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] specified which material facts were not disclosed by the assessee. The reassessment was based on an audit objection, which was itself based on material already available during the original assessment. No fresh material was presented to justify the reassessment. The tribunal found that the conditions for reopening the assessment were not satisfied, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. This issue was also covered in favor of the assessee by previous decisions of the ITAT, Delhi. Consequently, the tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid and annulled the assessment order dated 31.01.2013. 2. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Borrowed Funds for Acquiring Capital Assets: The AO disallowed ?13,66,775/- on account of interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring capital assets, citing that under section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such interest is not deductible until the assets are utilized in business. The tribunal did not specifically adjudicate this issue since the reassessment proceedings themselves were held invalid. 3. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80IB Claimed on DEPB/DDB Income: The AO disallowed ?9,87,575/- claimed under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on DEPB/DDB income, arguing that such income is not derived from manufacturing activity but is incidental to the business. Again, the tribunal did not specifically adjudicate this issue due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and annulled the assessment order dated 31.01.2013, holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. Other issues raised by the assessee were not specifically adjudicated as they became academic in nature due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
