9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 68 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - loss incurred on sale of repossessed vehicle - Capital vs Business loss - held that - It was a Business Loss. - Considering the history of the assessee and peculiar facts as well as the replies and reasoning taken by the Assessing Officer himself while dealing with the audit objections, it cannot be said that there was any tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer for forming opinion that the expenditure/loss under consideration could be capital loss and not business loss requiring him to initiate action u/s 147 of the Act - no reason to interfere therein for our own reasons stated hereinbefore and reject the grounds raised in appeal by the revenue - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147. 2. Nature of the loss on sale of repossessed assets (whether it is a business loss or a capital loss). Issue 1: Validity of the Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 The revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in annulling the order under Sections 143(3)/147 of the IT Act, arguing that the factual information provided by the internal auditor qualifies as information for reopening the assessment as per multiple judicial precedents. The assessee filed objections against the notice issued under Section 148, which were not accepted by the assessing authority, leading to the completion of the assessment with disallowance of the loss claimed on repossessed assets. The CIT (A) annulled the reopening, holding that the action was based on an audit party's legal objection and instructions from the territorial Commissioner of Income-tax, which do not constitute valid information under Section 147. The CIT (A) did not address the merits of the addition made by the assessing authority. The revenue argued that the CIT (A) misinterpreted the correspondence between the Assessing Officer and the CIT, asserting that the Assessing Officer had formed his own opinion. They also contended that post-amendment, Section 147 does not require specific information but only tangible material to form a prima facie belief of escaped income, which was present in this case. The assessee supported the CIT (A)'s conclusion, emphasizing the consistency in treating the loss on sale of repossessed vehicles as a business loss in previous assessments. They argued that the Assessing Officer's action was based on instructions from higher authorities, which is impermissible as per judicial precedents. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate that the action was taken on the superior authority's direction. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had previously disputed similar audit objections, treating the loss as a business loss. Hence, there was no tangible material justifying the reopening under Section 147. Issue 2: Nature of the Loss on Sale of Repossessed Assets The assessee claimed the loss on sale of repossessed assets as a business loss, which was disallowed by the assessing authority, treating it as a capital loss. The CIT (A) did not address this issue on merits due to the annulment of the reopening notice. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had consistently treated such losses as business losses in previous assessments, including for the Assessment Year 2001-02, where similar audit objections were raised and subsequently disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal highlighted that the nature of the business had not changed, and the loss should be consistently treated as a business loss. The Tribunal concluded that there was no tangible material to support the view that the loss was a capital loss, affirming the CIT (A)'s conclusion that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide on the merits of the assessee's Cross Objections, as the annulment of the reopening notice rendered them infructuous. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and disposed of the assessee's Cross Objections as infructuous. The order was pronounced in the open court on 02.11.2012.
|
