2019 (1) TMI 2053 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - objections were not disposed off and the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) - HELD THAT- Assessment has to be quashed for the reason of non-disposal of objections for the re-opening of assessment by the Assessing Officer. A similar view was taken in the case Arvind Mills Ltd 2004 (8) TMI 97 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 179 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Thus, we quash the assessment as bad in law. There is no whisper in the reasons recorded that the assessee has failed to truly and fully disclose all material facts required for the purpose of assessment though, the original assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act, and the re-opening is beyond the period of four years. For this proposition, we rely on the judgment of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. 2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disposal of objections for re-opening of assessment by the Assessing Officer.
3. Failure to disclose all material facts for the purpose of assessment.
4. Jurisdiction of re-opening assessment beyond the four-year period.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by an individual assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The key issue addressed in the judgment is the validity of the re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had initially declared income of Rs. 23,50,580/- for the said assessment year. However, a notice for re-opening of the assessment was issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act. The assessee raised objections regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and issuance of the notice, but these objections were not disposed of by the Assessing Officer before completing the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, held that the assessment had to be quashed due to the non-disposal of objections for the re-opening of assessment by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on judgments of the Gujarat High Court and the Bombay High Court in similar cases to support its decision. Additionally, the Tribunal found that there was no mention in the reasons recorded that the assessee had failed to disclose all material facts required for assessment, even though the original assessment was done under section 143(3) of the Act, and the re-opening was beyond the four-year period.

Further, the Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court to emphasize that when all relevant details were provided during the original assessment proceedings, and there was no failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, the re-opening of assessment after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of the invalidity of the re-opening of assessment and the failure to disclose all material facts essential for assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal quashed the assessment as bad in law and allowed the appeal of the assessee, highlighting the importance of disposing of objections for re-opening assessments and the necessity of disclosing all material facts for a valid assessment process.