2021 (12) TMI 700 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance of excessive depreciation - Depreciation on Electrical installation casting @ 15% as claimed or @ 10% as allowed by the A.O. - HELD THAT - As per the mandate of law even where a concluded assessment is sought to be reopened by the A.O within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is must that the A.O has fresh material or information with him that had led to the formation of belief on his part that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. . As regards the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the issue in question i.e entitlement of the assessee company for claim of depreciation on electrical installations was not looked into by the A.O in the course of the original assessment proceedings, therefore, in the absence of any formation of a view by the A.O the concept of change of opinion could not be brought into play, the same we are afraid does not find favour with us. As decided in the case of Dell India (P) Ltd. 2021 (2) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT an oversight, inadvertence or mistake of assessing officer or error discovered by him on reconsideration of the same material tantamounts to a mere change of opinion and, the same does not give him power to reopen a concluded assessment. As the A.O for the reasons discussed at length hereinabove had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company i.e without satisfying the mandate of law as required u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, the reassessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 23.09.2013 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations by classifying them at a lower depreciation rate.
3. Consequential additional depreciation on electrical installations.
4. Inclusion of disallowed depreciation in the written down value of subsequent years' block of assets.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147:
The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (A.O) validly reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The A.O reopened the case on the grounds that the assessee had claimed excessive depreciation on electrical fittings at 15% instead of the allowable 10%, leading to an excess depreciation claim of ?28,00,768/-. However, the Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a mere "change of opinion" rather than any fresh tangible material. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, which stated that reassessment must be based on tangible material indicating escapement of income, and not merely on a change of opinion. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment without new information, thus invalidating the reassessment proceedings.

2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Electrical Installations:
The A.O disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee on electrical installations at 15%, instead allowing it at 10%. This disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who agreed with the A.O that the electrical installations should be classified under electrical fittings, which attract a lower depreciation rate. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction, it did not delve into the merits of this issue.

3. Consequential Additional Depreciation on Electrical Installations:
The assessee also claimed additional depreciation on the electrical installations, which was disallowed by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A). Again, the Tribunal did not address this issue on merits due to the quashing of the reassessment order on jurisdictional grounds.

4. Inclusion of Disallowed Depreciation in Subsequent Years' Block of Assets:
The assessee argued that if the depreciation and additional depreciation were disallowed, they should be allowed to be included in the written down value of the subsequent years' block of assets. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on this issue, as the reassessment itself was invalidated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily on the grounds that the A.O had invalidly reopened the assessment under section 147 based on a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, and the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the other issues.