9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 494 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 - assessment was sought to be reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not made reference to any tangible material nor which has come to his notice after completion of original assessment which enable the Assessing Officer to form an opinion that income escaped assessment. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that reassessment proceedings was initiated based on materials already available on record. It is a case of mere change of opinion on the same set of information/material. The other requisite condition to be satisfied in case where the reopening is sought after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is that there should be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts which are necessary for the purpose of assessment. In the present case, admittedly, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that there is any such failure on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings. See M/S. SCHWING STETTER INDIA P. LTD. 2015 (6) TMI 497 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. 2. Compliance with TDS provisions on dyeing expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings: The primary issue in the appeal was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO). The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, alleging that income had escaped assessment due to non-compliance with TDS provisions on dyeing expenses. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that there was no tangible fresh material available to the AO to form an opinion that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) also noted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion on the same set of information/material already available on record. The Tribunal emphasized that for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 147, there must be tangible new material indicating that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Schwing Shetter India P. Ltd., which supported the view that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. 2. Compliance with TDS Provisions on Dyeing Expenses: The AO disallowed dyeing expenses amounting to ?60,10,655/- on the ground that the assessee did not comply with TDS provisions. However, the CIT(A) found that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on material already available on record and there was no fresh tangible material suggesting escapement of income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allege any such failure by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening an assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the reassessment proceedings were invalid in law. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO must have tangible new material to justify the reassessment and that a mere change of opinion does not constitute a valid reason for reopening an assessment. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for initiating reassessment proceedings.
|
