2021 (6) TMI 499 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessing Officer had contested the Revenue s audit objection allegedly pointing out escapement of assessee s taxable income which in turn was also approved by the Pr.CIT having jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The Revenue is fair enough in not denying all these clinching aspects in its pleadings. We thus conclude that the Revenue s audit authorities objection pitted against the Assessing Officer s opinion having jurisdiction regarding initiation of the impugned re-opening mechanism who duly concluded that no income had escaped assessment; must make way for the latter s opinion only. We accordingly uphold the CIT(A) s impugned conclusion quashing the impugned re-opening for this precise reason alone. Revenue s sole substantive ground fail.

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147.
2. Audit objections and their impact on reassessment.
3. Typographical error regarding tax exemption under Section 10AA instead of Section 10A.
4. Treatment of opening and closing stock in financial statements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The Revenue's sole substantive grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reopening of the assessment under Section 147. The appellant contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was erroneous as there was no omission or failure on their part to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The assessment was reopened after obtaining the required approval, and the reasons recorded for the reopening included provisions of Section 10AA. The reopening was based on an audit objection, which was objected to by the DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. The reopening of the assessment needs to be based on tangible material with a live-link to the belief of income escapement. The CIT(A) concluded that the reopening was due to a change of opinion and audit objection, which is not permissible as per various judicial precedents.

2. Audit Objections and Their Impact on Reassessment:
The audit pointed out that the company was eligible for income tax exemption under Section 10AA, but the assessment order allowed deduction under Section 10A, leading to a potential tax liability under MAT. The audit also raised issues regarding the treatment of opening and closing stock. The CIT(A) noted that an audit opinion regarding the application or interpretation of law cannot be treated as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b). The CIT(A) and various judicial precedents emphasized that reopening based on audit objections alone is not valid.

3. Typographical Error Regarding Tax Exemption under Section 10AA Instead of Section 10A:
The assessee clarified that the exemption mentioned in the assessment order under Section 10A was a typographical mistake and should have been under Section 10AA. The assessee is a 100% EOU located in SEZ and entitled to deduction under Section 10AA, making MAT inapplicable. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the reopening was based on a typographical error, which does not justify reassessment.

4. Treatment of Opening and Closing Stock in Financial Statements:
The audit raised objections regarding the treatment of opening and closing stock, specifically the inclusion of certain amounts in the opening stock of the mine and HO, which should have been distributed between different units. The assessee explained that the factory started commercial production from 1.4.2007, and the raw material marked for the factory was shown as closing stock in the mine's financial statements as of 31.3.2007. This was transferred to the factory during the year 2007-08. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation satisfactory and noted that the issue was a presentation mistake, not an excess debit in the P&L account.

Conclusion:
The CIT(A) applied various judicial precedents to conclude that the reopening of the assessment was due to a change of opinion and audit objection, which is not permissible. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10th June 2021.

← Previous Next →