2018 (2) TMI 2129 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - deduction u/s 80IA - deduction on interest income (including penal interest income and other income - HELD THAT - We note that it is not the case of earning the interest income from the surplus fund deposited in the bank or other incomes are not connected with the business activity of the assessee developing and maintaining industrial parks but the interest and penal interest received by the assessee in respect of the late payment made by the allottees. The other incomes though it is very small amount is also in respect of the maintenance and fee for sanction of plans etc and therefore it is apparent that on this issue there is a possibility of two views. When the AO has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA in the original assessment claim u/s 143(3) and also not disturbing the said claim in the first reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act then the reopening for the purpose of the disallowing the said deduction on the issue on which two views are possible is not permissible in the absence of any fresh material came to the knowledge of the AO which could lead to the formation of belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to excess deduction u/s 80IA of the Act allowed in the original assessment. It is not the case of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act allowed by the AO which is absolutely not permissible under the Act but the opinion of the AO in allowing the claim in the original assessment u/s 143(3) is a possible view. Accordingly in view of the facts that the interest and penal interest was received as part of the other Revenue earned by the assessee from the allottees and from the activity of developing maintaining and operating the industrial parks then the case of the assessee does not fall in the category of absolute impermissible claim. Hence the reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible under the law and the same is held as invalid. Accordingly we set aside the reopening u/s 148 as invalid and consequently quash the reassessment framed by the AO. Decided against revenue.

2018 (11) TMI 1971 - AT

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment addresses the following core issues:

Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in allowing the deduction of Rs. 11,52,52,892/- on interest income, including penal interest income and other income.
The validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on other miscellaneous income of Rs. 26,02,007/-.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Deduction on Interest Income

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case discusses the applicability of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for certain incomes derived from industrial undertakings or infrastructure facilities. The case also references the Supreme Court decision in Liberty India vs. CIT, which provides guidance on what constitutes eligible income under Section 80IA.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the interest income, including penal interest, was connected to the business activity of developing, maintaining, and operating industrial parks. The Tribunal noted that the interest income was derived from late payments by allottees, suggesting a connection to the business activity.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee had disclosed all relevant income details in its financial statements and audit reports during the original assessment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Liberty India case and determined that the interest income was sufficiently connected to the eligible business activity to qualify for the deduction under Section 80IA.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the interest income was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. However, the Tribunal found that the original assessment had allowed the deduction based on the material facts presented, and there was no new material to justify reopening the assessment.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction on interest income, finding that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible.

Issue 2: Validity of Reopening Under Section 147

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act allows for the reopening of assessments if income has escaped assessment. However, the reopening must be based on new material or information, not merely a change of opinion.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no new material or information to justify reopening the assessment. The reopening was based on a re-evaluation of the same material considered in the original assessment.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on material already available during the original assessment, and no new facts had emerged.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that a mere change of opinion does not justify reopening an assessment under Section 147. The absence of new material led to the conclusion that the reopening was invalid.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal found that this belief was not based on any new evidence.
Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the reopening of the assessment as invalid, quashing the reassessment order.

Issue 3: Deduction on Other Miscellaneous Income

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80IA deductions apply to income derived from eligible business activities. The Tribunal considered whether miscellaneous income was sufficiently connected to the eligible business.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the miscellaneous income was related to maintenance fees and other charges connected to the industrial park operations.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous income was disclosed in the assessee's financial statements and was part of the business operations.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of Section 80IA and determined that the miscellaneous income was part of the business activity, thus qualifying for the deduction.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued against the deduction, but the Tribunal found that the income was connected to the eligible business activity.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the deduction on miscellaneous income under Section 80IA.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The opinion formed by the AO on the basis of the re-appreciation of material already available on record is nothing but mere change of opinion."
Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced that reopening an assessment requires new material or information, not a mere change of opinion. Full and true disclosure by the assessee is crucial in determining the validity of reopening.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, quashing the reassessment order and upholding the deductions under Section 80IA.

← Previous Next →