2009 (9) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Reasons Reopening of an Assessment Earlier returns were processed u/s 143(1) - AO found that the petitioners have wrongly valued perquisite on account of rent free accommodation provided by the employers of the petitioners and the annual letting value of the house property should have been declared for assessment purposes as the assessee had made a claim of interest expenditure on the housing loan taken for the property - petitioner contended that the notices in question are clearly misconceived and are simply for harassing the petitioners who are professionals. He contended that the reasons which have been given for reopening of the assessment do not show that any new material has come to light for reopening of the assessment Held that - present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs - The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment show that there is no application of mind by the AO which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion Notice issued u/s 147/148 quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-

Summary

Issues Involved:
Reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 based on incorrect valuation of perquisite on rent-free accommodation and alleged non-disclosure of annual letting value of house property.

Analysis:

1. Incorrect Valuation of Perquisite on Rent-Free Accommodation:
The petitioners, husband and wife working as doctors, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2005-2006, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, they were issued notices under Sections 147/148 for reopening the assessment. The reasons for reopening included the Assessing Officer's belief that the petitioners undervalued the perquisite of rent-free accommodation provided by their employer. The officer contended that the perquisite should have been valued at 10% of the petitioners' salary, leading to an alleged under-disclosure of income. However, the senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the reasons for reopening were misconceived and lacked new material to justify reassessment. The counsel highlighted that the petitioners had shifted from the mentioned accommodation in 2001 and were not in Delhi during the relevant period. The counsel demonstrated how the perquisite was correctly calculated based on the employer's TDS certificate and Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The court found that the reasons for reopening lacked substance and were devoid of any new material post the original assessment, leading to the quashing of the notices.

2. Alleged Non-Disclosure of Annual Letting Value:
Another reason for reopening the assessment was the alleged non-disclosure of the annual letting value of the house property due to a claim of interest expenditure on a housing loan. The counsel for the petitioners argued that as the petitioners were posted in Raipur, the annual let-able value was nil as per Section 23(2)(b) of the IT Act. The counsel contended that this was a case of harassment as the officer failed to provide any basis for the reopening based on this issue. The court agreed with the petitioners, noting that the officer's conclusions lacked foundation and were baseless. The officer did not demonstrate any new material or concealment of facts by the petitioners, leading to the quashing of the notices and the associated questionnaire containing irrelevant inquiries.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices under Sections 147/148 and the questionnaire. The court imposed costs on the Revenue, emphasizing the lack of justification for the reassessment based on the incorrect valuation of perquisite and the alleged non-disclosure of the annual letting value.