9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 586 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that - Explanation 3, clearly, expounds that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment and such other issue, that comes to his notice subsequently, albeit, in the course of proceedings held under section 147. If, notice for reopening of the assessment was issued on one aspect, and in the course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, the reassessment order would be valid, only if, the aspect, which led to the reopening of assessment, continues to form part of the reassessed income. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that reassessment done for the impugned assessment year cannot stand the test of the law. Such reassessment is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition for Closing Stock Undervaluation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee, a jeweler, filed a return disclosing an income of ?8,81,160 for the assessment year. Initially, an assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 27.03.2014, with an addition of ?1,50,000 for improper maintenance of the stock register. Subsequently, a notice dated 01.06.2015 under Section 148 was issued for reopening the assessment, citing that ?6,62,620 credited as long-term capital gains in the capital account was not admitted while computing taxes. The assessee provided an explanation for the long-term capital gains through the sale of shares, which was exempt and credited in the capital account, and the Assessing Officer (AO) accepted this claim after examining the evidence. However, the AO proceeded with reassessment on a different footing, making an addition for closing stock difference of ?49,13,436 by applying the FIFO method instead of the average cost method used by the assessee. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was unsuccessful. The assessee contended that once the issue for reopening was found invalid, reassessment could not be made on unrelated items of income, relying on the judgment of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 0733. The Tribunal noted that the AO, in the reassessment order, acknowledged that the assessee had explained the long-term capital gains with necessary evidence and made no addition for the reason cited in the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal opined that if the alleged escaped income was found not to be any escapement at all, then additions for other items would not stand, referencing the legal principle from Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that reassessment can only take place if there is tangible material available to the AO, not merely a change of opinion. 2. Addition for Closing Stock Undervaluation: The AO made an addition of ?49,13,436 for closing stock undervaluation by applying the FIFO method, whereas the assessee had valued the stock using the average cost method. The AO’s reasoning was that the assessee did not follow a proper method of stock valuation, justifying the application of the FIFO method. The Tribunal, however, found that the reassessment was invalid since it was based on an issue not cited in the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., which stated that reassessment orders would be valid only if the aspect leading to the reopening of assessment forms part of the reassessed income. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment for the impugned assessment year could not stand the test of law and set aside the reassessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the reassessment order, and pronounced the order on December 11, 2018, at Chennai.
|
