2017 (8) TMI 325 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - Onus is on Revenue to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year and in the instant case, Revenue has failed to discharge this onus. When it is not the case of the Revenue that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly, Revenue cannot violate the statutory protection enjoyed by the assessee under proviso to section 147 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, we hold that the statutory protection enjoyed by the assessee under proviso to section 147 of the Act was wrongly violated by Revenue. Therefore, we dismiss all the grounds of appeal in this appeal filed by the Revenue, and hold that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and initiation of proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was erroneous in law in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of this conclusion, there is no need for us to adjudicate whether the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and the additions made in order dated 17.12.2009 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act amounted to change of opinion as this issue becomes purely academic.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in quashing the order passed u/s 147/143(3)
2. Failure to disclose material facts for reopening the case under Section 147
3. Disallowance and additions made in the reassessment order

Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in quashing the order passed u/s 147/143(3): The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order quashing the order passed u/s 147/143(3) for A.Y. 2002-03. The AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 based on discrepancies in the original return. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the proceedings were a mere change of opinion and lacked jurisdictional foundation. The Revenue contended that the additions made in the reassessment were not a change of opinion. The AR for the assessee argued that there was no failure to disclose material facts, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove non-disclosure of material facts, thus dismissing the appeal and upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

Failure to disclose material facts for reopening the case under Section 147: The AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 for A.Y. 2002-03 due to discrepancies in the original return. The assessee objected to the notice u/s 148, which was rejected by the AO. The reassessment order included additions for short declared interest income, excess interest expense, excess depreciation, and unrealized income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating no failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to show non-disclosure, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Disallowance and additions made in the reassessment order: The AO made additions in the reassessment order, including short declared interest income, excess interest expense, excess depreciation, and unrealized income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, not addressing the merits of the additions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of failure to disclose material facts, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) for A.Y. 2002-03. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on jurisdictional grounds.