9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of assessment based on alleged tax evasion due to incorrect allowance of development rebate and depreciation on Oxygen plant purchased on hire purchase basis, challenge to reassessment proceedings, entitlement to depreciation, development rebate, and deduction under s. 80J, interpretation of law regarding ownership of assets acquired on hire purchase basis. Analysis: 1. The appeal and cross objection were filed against the CIT (A)'s order for the assessment year 1975-76. The original assessment allowed development rebate and deduction under s. 80J, which were later deemed to be carried forward for set off. However, a revenue audit observed that the Oxygen plant's depreciation was wrongly allowed as the machinery was purchased on hire purchase basis, citing a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment. The Income-tax Officer subsequently reopened the assessment, disallowing depreciation, development rebate, and s. 80J relief. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) annulled the reassessment proceedings, citing that the question of ownership of assets acquired on hire purchase is a point of law, and the audit cannot advise on this legal point. The revenue challenged this annulment, arguing that the audit merely pointed out the legal judgment without advising on the law to be applied. Conversely, the assessee contended that the original assessment decision was made after due care and consideration of the law, rendering the reassessment void. 3. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer's belief to reopen the assessment was not based on new information but on instructions from higher authorities, despite his initial bonafide belief in the correctness of the original decision. The revenue audit's insistence on following the legal judgment influenced the reassessment, contrary to the Income-tax Officer's initial view. The Tribunal upheld the annulment of reassessment, emphasizing that the audit's attempt to instruct the Income-tax Officer on legal interpretation exceeded its jurisdiction. 4. The Supreme Court's precedent in Indian and Eastern Newspapers Society clarified that mere pointing out of legal judgments by the audit does not constitute valid information for reassessment. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rightfully annulled the reassessment proceedings, absolving the need to delve into the merits of the claims raised by the assessee. Consequently, both the appeal and cross objection were dismissed. 5. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the annulment of reassessment proceedings, emphasizing that the audit's attempt to instruct the Income-tax Officer on legal interpretation exceeded its jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in annulling the reassessment, as the reassessment was not based on valid information but on the audit's insistence to follow a legal judgment.
|
