9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 130 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - reasons for reopening the case - reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that Carlton 2009 (8) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT concludes the issue in the present case; the audit objection merely is an information. As reiterated in Kelvinator 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA by the Supreme Court, change of opinion is impermissible. The Revenue was clearly barred by provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act. In the present case, the reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion. Having regard to the fact that the assessee s challenge to the previous year s re-assessment orders was successful - in FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2018 (11) TMI 601 - DELHI HIGH COURT the reassessment proceedings are unsustainable - the impugned re-assessment notice dated 31.03.2018, cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 based on reassessment of original return, validity of reassessment notice, treatment of Forex gain as allowable deduction, reliance on audit reports for reassessment, application of accounting standards, failure to disclose material facts for assessment. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Notice under Section 148 The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2011-12, arguing that the original return was assessed under scrutiny and subsequently revised. The impugned reassessment notice was issued based on reasons provided by the Assessing Officer, alleging that income had escaped assessment due to failure to disclose material facts. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was akin to revisiting the original scrutiny assessment, which was impermissible. Issue 2: Treatment of Forex Gain The Assessing Officer raised concerns regarding the deduction claimed on account of Forex gain, stating that it was not an allowable expense as it was of revenue nature. The AO highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of Foreign Exchange fluctuation gain and loss, emphasizing the need for compliance with Accounting Standards. The AO relied on judicial precedents to support the contention that Forex gains should be recorded as income and failure to disclose such gains constituted concealment of information. Issue 3: Reliance on Audit Reports for Reassessment The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice was solely based on an audit opinion, which did not constitute tangible material for reassessment. Citing previous judgments, the petitioner contended that a mere change of opinion without fresh material does not warrant reassessment. The court emphasized that reliance on audit reports alone cannot justify reassessment and reiterated the principle that change of opinion is impermissible. Issue 4: Application of Accounting Standards The Assessing Officer invoked Accounting Standard II to support the treatment of Forex gains as income. The AO highlighted the requirement for full and true disclosure of material facts as per the Accounting Standards, emphasizing that the petitioner's failure to disclose relevant information led to the reassessment. The court examined the provisions of AS 11 and judicial interpretations to determine the correct treatment of Forex gains in the assessment process. Issue 5: Failure to Disclose Material Facts The court analyzed the obligation of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Referring to Explanation 1 to Section 147, the court emphasized the importance of transparent disclosure by the assessee. Failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts was considered a ground for reassessment, as demonstrated by the petitioner's claim of Forex gain without adequate disclosure. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the impugned reassessment notice dated 31.03.2018, along with all consequential proceedings, based on the finding that the reassessment was solely reliant on an audit opinion and constituted a change of opinion impermissible under the law. The court emphasized the need for tangible material to justify reassessment and upheld the principle that mere reliance on audit reports does not warrant reassessment. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with Accounting Standards and the obligation of the assessee to make full and true disclosures to avoid reassessment based on non-disclosure of material facts.
|
