9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 773 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - CIT held that the reopening of the assessment is illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed - HELD THAT - Since, the re-assessment order itself has been quashed by the CIT(A) and the same is no more in existence in view of the order passed by the CIT(A) therefore, the revision order passed by the CIT(E) would not survive and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. In case the Revenue succeed in the appeal, if any filed against the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue may seek to revive the present appeal to be decided on merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of Section 43B regarding unpaid liabilities and accrued interest. 3. Procedural adherence and natural justice in reassessment proceedings. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147: The assessee filed a return declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The initial assessment was completed at nil income. However, the assessment was reopened under Section 148 to assess income not applied for charitable purposes and income from stamp fees. The reassessment was completed, but the CIT(A) quashed this reassessment order. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have any "tangible material" to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment was based on the same material available during the original assessment, amounting to a "mere change of opinion" rather than "reason to believe." The reassessment proceedings were thus deemed illegal and bad in law. 2. Applicability of Section 43B Regarding Unpaid Liabilities and Accrued Interest: The CIT(E) observed that the assessee had shown accrued interest as expenditure, which was not paid until filing the ITR. According to Section 43B, such unpaid liabilities are not allowable as expenditure. The CIT(E) also noted that various taxes and fees (Malva fee, water tax, sewer tax, legal fee, registration money payable) shown as current liabilities were not paid and thus not allowable under Section 43B. The CIT(E) held the AO's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries. 3. Procedural Adherence and Natural Justice in Reassessment Proceedings: The CIT(A) highlighted procedural lapses in the reassessment process. The AO did not provide a speaking order disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reassessment. The AO rejected the objections only four days before completing the reassessment, without giving the assessee sufficient time (at least four weeks) to challenge the rejection. This procedural lapse violated the principles of natural justice, as established by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd. The reassessment proceedings were thus void ab initio on procedural grounds. Conclusion: Since the reassessment order was quashed by the CIT(A) and is no longer in existence, the revision order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 263 becomes infructuous and is liable to be quashed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed, but if the Revenue succeeds in any appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, the Revenue may seek to revive the present appeal to be decided on merits. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced on 17.01.2023 at Allahabad, U.P. in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
|
