9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 30 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - loss on valuation of stock - Held that - The assessee was constrained to change the method of valuation of stock after the revised Accounting Standard-2 became mandatory. The semi finished goods were hither to valued at cost and the said fact was reported in the Annual report relating to AY 2002-03. The change in the valuation was also duly disclosed in the Annual report relating to AY 2003-04. The details of change were also communicated to the AO through a letter dated 02-01- 2006 filed in the original assessment proceedings before the AO. Copy of the letter filed before the AO is placed on record at page 46-47 of the paper book. The AO has completed the original assessment accepting the explanations of the assessee without making any addition. Assessee has disclosed all the facts material to computation of income fully and truly. AO did not state in the reasons for reopening that there was failure on the part of the assessee. Hence the AO has reopened the assessment on mere change of opinion and hence the reopening has to be held as bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of reopening of assessment. 3. Merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 141 days, which the CIT(A) refused to condone. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the assessment order being forwarded to an Executive Director who resigned without informing the management. The Tribunal noted that the reasons cited by the assessee were not concocted or unreasonable. The explanation involved the assessment order being received at the head office in Mumbai and forwarded to the Executive Director in Vadodara, who resigned without notifying the management. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the delay was not inordinate and the reasons were bona fide. 2. Validity of Reopening of Assessment: The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and later reopened after four years. The AO reopened the assessment on the grounds that the assessee claimed a loss by valuing the stock at a lower rate. The assessee contended that all relevant facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment, including the change in stock valuation due to the revised Accounting Standard-2. The Tribunal observed that the reasons for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. It held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and was thus invalid under the first proviso to Section 147. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order. 3. Merits of the Addition Made by the AO: Since the Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment to be invalid, it did not need to adjudicate on the merits of the addition made by the AO. 4. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c): With the original assessment order being set aside, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. The Tribunal set aside the penalty order passed by the CIT(A) and the AO. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, quashing the reassessment order due to invalid reopening, and setting aside the penalty order. The judgment emphasized the importance of a bona fide explanation for delays and the necessity for the AO to clearly state any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts when reopening assessments after four years.
|
