2012 (5) TMI 202 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment - Notice u/s 148 - Addition on account difference in revenue booked in P & L A/c and TDS Certificates - held that - not only the return of income stood assessed but also the proceedings u/s.154 have been concluded after the assessee has submitted its reply. After all these stages reopening u/s.147 has been initiated by an issuance of notice u/s.148 dated 25.03.2009. On this background, the validity of the proceedings u/s.147 has been challenged before us in the additional grounds. - The case is covered directly by the ratio and law laid down by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. (2009 -TMI - 76496 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) - assessment proceedings u/s 147 quashed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of transport charges due to TDS deduction.
2. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 147 challenging the reassessment.

Issue 1: Disallowance of transport charges due to TDS deduction:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of the difference in transport charges received, amounting to Rs. 52,56,153, as TDS was deducted but payment for transport charges was not considered. The Assessing Officer raised concerns regarding discrepancies in total receipts and expenses related to vehicle expenditure. The appellant contended that the practice of accounting for transport charges on a net basis was consistently followed and accepted by the department in previous and subsequent assessment years. The appellant argued that the reopening under section 147 based on the same grounds as section 154 proceedings was unjustified. The Senior DR defended the validity of the reopening, emphasizing proper reasons recorded and the absence of a passed assessment under section 143(3). The tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions, concluding that the reassessment lacked a valid basis for reopening under section 147. The tribunal highlighted the importance of the Assessing Officer having genuine "reasons to believe" for reassessment, which should not be arbitrary or irrational. The tribunal found no new material presented in the "reasons recorded" for reopening, leading to the quashing of the proceedings under section 147.

Issue 2: Validity of proceedings initiated under section 147 challenging the reassessment:
The appellant raised additional grounds challenging the initiation of proceedings under section 147, arguing that the necessary preconditions for reassessment were not fulfilled. The appellant contended that the reasons recorded for reopening were based on the same issues addressed earlier, and no new relevant information was provided. The tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must have genuine "reasons to believe" for income escaping assessment, which should be based on relevant and material grounds. The tribunal referenced a judgment by the Calcutta High Court, highlighting that reassessment cannot be initiated on the same reasons as rectification proceedings without disclosing new material. Based on the lack of substantial grounds for reopening, the tribunal quashed the proceedings under section 147 and declared the assessment order as null and void. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, rendering the challenged additions as academic and not requiring further consideration.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment addresses the issues involved in the case, highlighting the arguments presented by the parties, the tribunal's evaluation of the facts and legal principles, and the ultimate decision reached regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147.