2020 (7) TMI 539 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice after four years - notice barred by limitation - CSR expenditure allowability - HELD THAT - When the issue is covered in favour of the assessee on merits by the order of the jurisdictional High Court reopening on that issue does not survive.Thereafter referred plethora of the judicial precedents and held that there was no non disclosure on the part of the assessee. Even otherwise on our examination of the facts and the assessment order, we find that with respect to the CSR expenditure the AO himself refers to the details of other expenses filed during the assessment proceedings. For prior period expenditure also the AO refers to the details filed and disallowance made during the regular assessment proceedings. With respect to the employee s contribution fund the AO refers to the information already available with the return of income. Disallowance u/s 14A was merely to correct the incorrect computation in the original assessment proceedings. With respect to the deprecation on computer software, AO has changed his opinion with respect to the rate of depreciation. He merely applies 25% rate of depreciation instead of 60% as applied in original assessment proceedings. It is apparent that the AO has not pointed out that what facts were not disclosed by the assessee. AO also not brought on record any specific information, which the assessee has failed to disclose in the original return. No infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in stating that reopening is barred by limitation and the period of six years for reopening is not available to the assessee. CIT (A) is also correct in deciding that in absence of any failure on part of the assessee, extended limitation period of six years cannot be available to the ld AO; therefore, the reassessment order is passed beyond limitation. No infirmity, as argued by CIT DR, in the order of ld CIT (A). In absence of any failure on the part of the assessee, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings.
2. Examination of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses.
3. Change of opinion regarding the reassessment.
4. Non-mention of 83 case laws in the appellate order.
5. Consideration of prior period expenses.
6. Disallowance under section 14A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The primary issue was whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) were valid. The original assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2008, and a notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2013. The proviso to section 147 applies, which restricts reassessment after four years unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The CIT(A) held that there was no such failure by the assessee, and thus the reassessment was void ab initio. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the AO did not adequately demonstrate any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee.

2. Examination of CSR Expenses:
The AO contended that the CSR expenses of ?7,04,01,602/- were not examined during the initial assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) found that this issue was indeed examined, and there was no suppression of material facts by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the CSR expenses were disclosed in the details of "other expenses" during the original assessment.

3. Change of Opinion Regarding Reassessment:
The AO argued that the reassessment was not a change of opinion. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the issues raised in the reassessment, such as CSR expenses and depreciation on software licenses, were already examined during the original assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that reassessment on the same facts constitutes a change of opinion, which is not permissible.

4. Non-Mention of 83 Case Laws in Appellate Order:
The AO raised a ground that the CIT(A) did not mention the relevance of 83 case laws cited in the appellate order. The Tribunal did not find this argument substantial enough to affect the validity of the CIT(A)'s order, as the primary issue was the validity of the reassessment itself.

5. Consideration of Prior Period Expenses:
The AO sought to add an additional ?1,18,33,865/- of prior period expenses, which was not added back in the original assessment. The CIT(A) found that these expenses were disclosed and examined during the original assessment. The Tribunal agreed, noting that there was no non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee regarding these expenses.

6. Disallowance Under Section 14A:
The AO made a disallowance under section 14A, which was a point of contention. The CIT(A) held that this issue was part of the original assessment and appellate proceedings, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the disallowance was merely a correction of an earlier computation error.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the reassessment order, finding that the reassessment was barred by limitation and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Consequently, the remaining grounds on merits did not require adjudication. The appeal by the AO was dismissed.

← Previous Next →