2017 (8) TMI 74 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that - There was no mention in the recorded reasons that the escapement of chargeable income from tax was due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, the notice for re-opening was quashed. Besides, we concur with the submissions of the Ld. AR that no new facts have come to the knowledge of the AO justifying assumption of jurisdiction after four years. The orders of the authorities below also nowhere reveal as to what new facts or material came to their notice which led them to make re-assessment in the instant case. A bare reading of first proviso to section 147, shows that the law merely casts a duty on the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment which has been done in the instant case. The duty of the assessee does not extend beyond the disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment. It is thereafter the duty of AO to properly apply its mind on the facts and law. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is unsustainable in the instant case in view of the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Purolator India Ltd.(2011 (11) TMI 365 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act.
2. Classification of expenditure as capital in nature.
3. Disallowance of prior period expenses and valuation of closing stock.

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act:

The reassessment order dated 16.12.2009 was challenged by the assessee on grounds of jurisdiction, legality, and validity. The key contention was that the reassessment order was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio. The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred and lacked a valid reason for reopening. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the AO had already examined the issues in the original assessment, and no new facts justified the reassessment after four years. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was unsustainable in law, as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, and the AO failed to apply the law correctly during the original assessment.

Issue 2: Classification of expenditure as capital in nature:

The CIT(A) had classified an expenditure of ?97,83,658 as capital in nature, which was contested by the assessee. The assessee argued that the expenses were contributions to dealers/distributors for showroom renovation and hoarding costs, not capital expenditures. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, stating that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the nature of the expenses. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the expenses did not provide long-term benefits and should not be treated as capital in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the expenditure should be treated as revenue expenditure, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision.

Issue 3: Disallowance of prior period expenses and valuation of closing stock:

The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of ?77,57,175 on account of prior period expenses and the addition of ?13,42,55,743 on account of undervaluation of closing stock. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of prior period expenses, citing lack of justification for the disallowance. Regarding the valuation of closing stock, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and deleted the addition, as the material in transit was reflected in the balance sheet but not considered in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's arguments lacked merit and supported the CIT(A)'s decisions on these issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the reassessment order and allowing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid, the expenditure was not capital in nature, and the disallowances by the Revenue were unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed while that of the Revenue was dismissed.