9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 723 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of reasons to believe - eligibility of 80HHC deduction - HELD THAT - In this case it is a fact that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessing officer has not alleged that assessee has failed to disclose material facts truly and fully. It is also a fact that reopening has been done based on the record already available at the time of original assessment order. No new information has been received by the AO - CIT(A) in his order has demonstrated that during original assessment order the assessing officer has considered income on account of financial activity while calculating 80HHC deduction. Before us the AR filed copy of submission dated 10/01/2006 filed by the Assessee during the original assessment proceeding before the assessing officer Addl.CIT Range 8 - The assessee had submitted all the details during original assessment proceedings. Therefore the reopening is merely based on Change of Opinion. Therefore in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 138 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and assessee s own case 2013 (12) TMI 1725 - ITAT PUNE it is held that notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and therefore the consequential re-assessment is hereby by cancelled. Thus the grounds of appeal by Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Justification for not appreciating the mistake in the original assessment and the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80HHC. 3. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 within the prescribed time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue questioned whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 was lawful. The assessee argued that as per the proviso to section 147, no action can be taken after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there was a failure to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee cited various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), to support the claim that the reopening was based on a change of opinion. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that all facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment, and the reopening was indeed a change of opinion, thus making it bad in law. 2. Justification for not appreciating the mistake in the original assessment and the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80HHC: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the mistake in the original assessment regarding the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80HHC. The CIT(A) observed that the original assessment order under section 143(3) had already considered the deduction under section 80HHC, including the exclusion of finance income from eligible profits. The CIT(A) concluded that the reopening amounted to a change of opinion since the Assessing Officer (AO) had already dealt with these issues during the original assessment. 3. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 within the prescribed time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year: The Revenue argued that the notice under section 148 was issued within the six-year time limit, as allowed under section 147, and thus was valid. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the notice was issued based on the same records available during the original assessment, without any new information, and hence was based on a change of opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the AO did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a prerequisite for reopening an assessment after four years. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal emphasized that all material facts had been fully and truly disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no new information to justify the reopening. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the notice under section 148 and the subsequent reassessment were declared bad in law. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 15th March 2022.
|
