2019 (1) TMI 1325 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - notice beyond the period of four years - allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts - Held that - A bare perusal of the reasons recorded shows that there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment. In absence of such allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment, the reassessment proceedings have been held to be invalid by various decisions. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar 2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that where reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of that assessment year and notice was clearly beyond the period of four years, reassessment was barred by limitation - decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition on merits regarding the disallowance of provision for inventory.
3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147:

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147, asserting that the proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The assessee argued that the reassessment was based solely on audit objections, which is not a valid ground for reopening the assessment as per various judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment did not include any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Samcor Glass Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of such an allegation, the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and invalid.

The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment was based on audit objections, which is not permissible as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deemed void ab initio.

2. Addition on Merits Regarding the Disallowance of Provision for Inventory:

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action in disallowing the provision for inventory created by the assessee, amounting to ?1,63,04,874/-. The CIT(A) reasoned that the assessee, being a wholesale distributor of Swiss watches, created the provision based on estimated and management experience without any scientific method or inventory book to support the valuation. The CIT(A) opined that the provision should be based on actual sales realization prices and not on estimated values.

However, since the Tribunal found the reassessment proceedings to be void ab initio, it did not adjudicate on the merits of this issue, deeming it academic in nature.

3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):

The assessee also contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Given that the reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid, the Tribunal did not address this issue separately.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, concluding that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were void ab initio due to the absence of any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and the reliance on audit objections. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the addition on merits and the initiation of penalty proceedings, were not adjudicated.

← Previous Next →