2010 (3) TMI 317 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment- a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 an assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 is sought to be reopened on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147. Firstly according to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax the assessee had written off a long term capital loss of Rs. 11.14 crores from the sale of certain land. Secondly Assessing Officer added back after disallowing an amount of Rs. 64.62 lakhs on account of depreciation on obsolete assets which was worked out at the rate of 20 %. Held that- (i) No tangible material was shown on the basis of which the assessment was sought to be reopened. The reassessment on this ground is not valid. (ii) The reason that had been furnished by the Assessing officer while reopening the assessment did not even advert thereto. The reassessment on this ground is not valid.

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Rs. 2.89 crores on account of "tank land liability" in computing long-term capital gains.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on obsolete assets.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

A. Deduction of Rs. 2.89 crores on account of "tank land liability" in computing long-term capital gains:

1. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2004-05, disclosing details about the transfer of development rights for land at Mulund. The development rights were granted through an MOU with Nirmal Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 35.82 crores.

2. The return included a statement of profits from the sale of fixed assets, with sale proceeds for phase III disclosed as Rs. 10.62 crores. Deductions were claimed for consultancy fees of Rs. 27.50 lakhs and Rs. 2.89 crores paid towards meeting the dues of the Government of Maharashtra.

3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer queried the nature of the transaction and the applicability of section 50C. The assessee provided explanations and the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3), accepting the deductions claimed.

4. The principal objection raised by the assessee was that there was full disclosure in the return, and the Assessing Officer had already considered and accepted the deductions. The court found merit in this submission, noting that there was no tangible material to justify reopening the assessment. The reassessment was deemed to be based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law.

B. Disallowance of depreciation on obsolete assets:

1. The assessee submitted a tax audit report under section 44AB, which included an expenditure of Rs. 21.98 lakhs for obsolete assets. This amount was added back in the computation of income.

2. The assessee provided a working of depreciation on obsolete assets, calculated at 20%, and claimed that depreciation should be allowed on the written down value of these assets.

3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation based on past assessments where similar claims were not accepted. The disallowance was made at 20% as per the assessee's without prejudice statement.

4. The reassessment sought to change the disallowance rate to 25%, which the court found to be a mere change of opinion without any tangible material. The court noted that the rate of depreciation under the Income-tax Rules pertains to plant and machinery, not obsolete assets.

Legal Precedents and Additional Submissions:

1. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., emphasizing that reassessment must be based on tangible material and not a mere change of opinion. The power to reassess is not akin to a power to review.

2. The assessee also argued that the issues were already under appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), invoking the proviso to section 147, which precludes reassessment on matters under appeal. Additionally, it was argued that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reopen an assessment originally passed by the Additional Commissioner.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that there was no tangible material to justify the reopening of the assessment. The reasons recorded constituted a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notice dated March 16, 2009, was quashed and set aside. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →