9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Alleged suppression of production and closing stock. 3. Alleged lower value disclosed to the bank. 4. Disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC. Issue 1: Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings Initiated under Section 147 The core issue revolves around the validity of the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A), which had canceled the re-assessment proceedings on the grounds that they were based on a change of opinion on the same set of facts and law existing at the time of the original assessment. The material facts reveal that the assessee had initially filed a return disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,71,21,790, which was later assessed at Rs. 3,33,94,470 under section 143(3). The total income was subsequently reduced to Rs. 1,96,61,037 following the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80HHC, which was allowed by the AO as per the certificate attached to the return. However, the AO later revised the deduction under section 80HHC due to differences between the returned and assessed profits. Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under section 154, stating that the computation of deduction under section 80HHC was done without adjusting the loss from trading exports with the profits from manufactured goods exports. The AO's order under section 154 was set aside by the ITAT, which observed that the issue involved interpretation and debate, thus not falling under the purview of section 154. However, before this order, the AO had already issued a notice under section 148, leading to the re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) held that the re-opening by the AO was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion on the same set of facts and law existing at the time of the original assessment. The CIT(A) referenced various court decisions and CBDT Circular No. 549, which prohibits re-opening based on mere changes of opinion. The Department contended that the re-opening was not based on a mere change of opinion but on the erroneous nature of the original assessment, which allowed excessive deduction under section 80HHC. The Department argued that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to excessive relief granted under section 80HHC, satisfying the conditions under section 147. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the material on record. It noted that the amended section 147, effective from April 1, 1989, does not empower the AO to re-open assessments on a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and a mere change of opinion does not justify re-assessment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, justifying the AO's re-opening of the assessment. Issue 2: Alleged Suppression of Production and Closing Stock The AO, in the re-assessment proceedings, made an addition of Rs. 1,69,02,362 on account of suppression of production and closing stock. This issue was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order as the primary focus was on the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Issue 3: Alleged Lower Value Disclosed to the Bank The AO also made an addition of Rs. 92,76,827 on account of disclosing a lower value to the bank. Similar to the suppression of production and closing stock, this issue was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order. Issue 4: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80HHC The AO disallowed the deduction under section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 4,02,37,624 in the re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown a profit from export of trading goods at Nil, though there was a loss of Rs. 22,08,86,222. The AO had reason to believe that the assessee had not adjusted this loss against the profit from export of manufactured goods, leading to excessive deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, justifying the AO's re-opening of the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on relevant, sufficient, and adequate materials, and was not a mere change of opinion. Conclusion: The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the AO had validly initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The notice issued under section 148 was deemed legal and valid. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to dispose of the additions or disallowances on merit after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.
|
