9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Inclusion of Excise Duty in the "total turnover" for computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act: Facts and Arguments: - The Revenue appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. - The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148 on the grounds that the assessee did not include Central Excise Duty in the total sales, which was required for computing deduction under section 80HHC, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal. - The assessee objected, arguing there was no failure to disclose material facts and that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion. Findings: - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was illegal and invalid, noting that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the original assessments. - It was observed that the Assessing Officer had scrutinized the excise duty details during the original assessment and chose not to include it in the total turnover. The notice under section 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which is only permissible if the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in VDM, R.M M.R.M. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT, to support the conclusion that the assessee had no obligation to disclose information beyond what was required under the Act and Rules. Conclusion: - The reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as they were based on a mere change of opinion and not on any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment notices issued under section 148 were thus held to be illegal and void. 2. Inclusion of Excise Duty in the "Total Turnover" for Computing Deduction Under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act: Facts and Arguments: - The Assessing Officer included excise duty in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC, reducing the deduction amount. - The assessee contended that excise duty should not be included in the total turnover, citing various judicial decisions and the statutory provisions. Findings: - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held in favor of the assessee, stating that excise duty was not to be included in the total turnover for computing relief under section 80HHC. - The Tribunal noted that the only direct decision on this issue by a High Court was the Bombay High Court's ruling in Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., which held that excise duty and sales tax are not includible in the total turnover for section 80HHC purposes. - The Tribunal further referenced multiple decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal that supported the exclusion of excise duty from the total turnover, emphasizing that statutory levies like excise duty do not have an element of profit and are not part of the business turnover. Conclusion: - The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), confirming that excise duty should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC. This decision was based on the interpretation that statutory levies do not form part of the "total turnover" as they do not contribute to business profits. Final Decision: - Both appeals by the Revenue were dismissed. The reassessment proceedings were held invalid, and it was confirmed that excise duty should not be included in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act.
|
