9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 653 - AT - Income TaxRe-opening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance of claim u/s. 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT - There is no violation on the part of the assessee to fully disclose material facts are of the substantive opinion that the re-assessment u/s 147 is bad in law as the assessee bank has substantiated with evidence and judicial decisions on full and fair disclosure of material. Assessee-bank has discharged its duty by disclosing all material facts fully and truly and if the information submitted is untrue or on account of omission or failure to discharge fully and truly the provisions of section 147(a) shall not apply. We also support our view and rely on the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Infosys Ltd. (Formerly known as Infosys Technologies Ltd.) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 2019 (6) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and quash the re-assessment proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of claims under Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Classification of rural branches for the purpose of Section 36(1)(vii). 4. Levy of interest under Section 220. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The primary issue contested by the assessee was the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on existing material and constituted a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 31-01-2008, and the notice for reopening under Section 148 was issued on 25-03-2013, beyond the four-year period. The assessee contended that it had disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment and there was no failure on its part. The Tribunal examined various judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Venkatesh Power Works Vs. CIT, which emphasized that reassessment cannot be initiated merely based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. 2. Disallowance of Claims under Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii): The assessee challenged the disallowance of claims under Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the claim under Section 36(1)(vii) but confirmed the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal found that the assessee had followed the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines for classification and had made the necessary provisions in the books of account. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to conclude that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had disclosed all relevant information and followed the prescribed guidelines. 3. Classification of Rural Branches for the Purpose of Section 36(1)(vii): The assessee argued that the classification of rural branches should be based solely on population criteria as per the RBI guidelines. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to classify rural branches as done for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal examined the RBI's explanatory notes and found that the assessee had correctly classified the branches based on population data. The Tribunal held that the classification was in accordance with the RBI guidelines and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground. 4. Levy of Interest under Section 220: The assessee also contested the levy of interest under Section 220. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, the issue of interest became academic and was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2007-08, allowing the assessee's appeal on the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147. Consequently, the other grounds of appeal became academic. Similarly, for AY 2006-07, the same decision applied. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous since the original order of reassessment was cancelled. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
|
