9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the CIT(A) in canceling the reassessment under section 147. 2. Justification of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by recomputation of deduction under section 80HHC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the CIT(A) in Canceling the Reassessment under Section 147: The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the reassessment for the assessment year 1992-93. The reassessment was initiated because the Assessing Officer (AO) believed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to an omission in considering Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC(3) during the original assessment. The AO issued a notice under section 148 within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, citing the inclusion of interest income of Rs. 20,30,240 in the 'profits of the business' without the required reduction, resulting in an excess deduction under section 80HHC. The CIT(A) canceled the reassessment, but the revenue argued that the reopening was valid as per section 147, which allows reopening if the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The revenue cited the Gujarat High Court decisions in Praful Chunilal Patel v. CIT and Garden Finance Ltd v. Asstt. CIT, supporting the AO's belief in the escapement of income. The assessee contended that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion, which is not permissible, relying on the Gujarat High Court decisions in Garden Silk Mills Ltd v. Dy. CIT and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT. However, the Tribunal held that the original assessment did not consider Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC, resulting in excessive relief. Thus, the reopening was not a change of opinion but a correction of an oversight, making the reassessment valid. 2. Justification of the CIT(A) in Deleting the Addition Made by the Assessing Officer by Recomputation of Deduction under Section 80HHC: The AO had reduced the profits and gains of business by the interest income of Rs. 20,30,240, leading to a reduced deduction under section 80HHC by Rs. 16,91,935. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, but the revenue appealed, arguing that the interest income should be excluded from the profits as per Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC(3). The Tribunal noted that the Special Bench of ITAT in Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT held that only the net interest income, not the gross interest, should be excluded from the profits for the purpose of section 80HHC. The assessee admitted this position and requested that if the reopening was upheld, the AO should be directed to rework the deduction as per the Special Bench's decision. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue's contention that the interest income should be excluded from the profits for the purpose of section 80HHC but clarified that only the net interest income should be excluded. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to rework the deduction under section 80HHC accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under section 147, reversing the CIT(A)'s cancellation. On the merits, the Tribunal directed that only the net interest income should be excluded from the profits for the purpose of section 80HHC, following the Special Bench's decision in Lalsons Enterprises. The revenue's appeal was deemed to be allowed.
|
