9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1170 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years - year of taxability of the interest income asl ong back there was some civil dispute of the assessee on account of that it had received an arbitration award, who directed payment of interest also - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee own case 2021 (6) TMI 892 - ITAT KOLKATA we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has no power to give directions to the AO to reopen the assessments for the assessment years which are not before him. We also do not find any direction given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order for AY 2009-10. The ld. CIT(A) applied the ratio of the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai 1983 (9) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT and deleted the interest added in the AY 2009-10. The other assessment years were not before him i.e. AY 2005-06 and 2006-07. The proposition of law laid down in the case law referred above is that the ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law to give direction to the AO for reopening of assessment. Thus the reasons recorded for reopening of assessments is bad in law. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional issue regarding the reopening of assessments under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Year of taxability of interest income received due to a High Court order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdictional Issue Regarding Reopening of Assessments: The primary issue in both appeals is the jurisdictional validity of reopening the assessments for the assessment years (A.Ys.) 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 09.10.2013, which were beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening were identical to those recorded for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07, where the Tribunal had already quashed the reopening. The reasons for reopening were based on the High Court’s order dated 17.04.2008, which directed HSCL to pay interest to the assessee for the period 28.11.1998 to 31.03.2008. The AO believed that the interest income of ?10,58,25,030/- should be divided equally over ten assessment years from A.Y. 1998-99 to 2008-09, and since this income was not offered for tax in the respective years, it had escaped assessment. The Tribunal, referring to its earlier decision, held that the reopening of assessments based on the CIT(A)’s findings for A.Y. 2009-10 was not legally valid. The CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to direct the AO to bring the amount to tax in an assessment year not involved in the appeal before him. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) could only decide matters relating to the assessment year before him and not otherwise. 2. Year of Taxability of Interest Income: The dispute also involved the year of taxability of the interest income received due to the High Court order. The AO taxed the amount in the year of receipt, while the CIT(A) held that it should be taxed on an accrual basis, as the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had applied the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Rama Bai v. CIT, which stated that interest on enhanced compensation for land compulsorily acquired should be taken to have accrued year after year from the date of delivery of the land till the date of the court order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly decided that the interest income should be assessed in the respective years in which it accrued, rather than in one lump sum in the year of receipt. The Tribunal reiterated that the CIT(A) had no power to give directions to the AO to reopen assessments for years not before him. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessments for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, following its earlier decision for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law and did not deem it necessary to adjudicate other issues on merit. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open Court on March 22nd, 2022.
|
