2013 (11) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Reasons for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income tax act after the gap of four years Expense claimed by the assessee is not truthful Held that - One of the purposes of section 147 appears to us to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice to turn around and say you accepted my lie now your hands are tied and you can do nothing . It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude - Decision in Dalmia Pvt. Ltd 2011 (9) TMI 146 - DELHI HIGH COURT is clearly distinguishable as that was a case where the assessee had not furnished the details despite a request having been made by the Assessing Officer. It is in that context that the court observed that if there was no disclosure and details were not furnished there cannot be full and true disclosure. In the present case the situation is just the opposite. The information sought by the Assessing Officer had been supplied and furnished by the petitioner and it has already been held on facts that there was a full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the said decision in Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would also not come to the aid of the respondents Decided in favor of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.
3. Allegation of failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts.
4. Change of opinion as a ground for reopening assessment.
5. Validity of the order disposing of objections to reopening.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment for the year 2005-06 initiated by a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued on March 26, 2012. The petitioner contended that the reopening was beyond the four-year period stipulated by the proviso to Section 147, which requires compliance with certain conditions, including the failure of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.

2. Compliance with the Proviso to Section 147:
The petitioner argued that the conditions of the proviso to Section 147 were not met as there was no allegation or indication in the recorded reasons that the petitioner failed to make a full and true disclosure. The petitioner maintained that there had been full and true disclosure, and no inference could be drawn from the reasons recorded that there was any such failure.

3. Allegation of Failure to Disclose Material Facts:
The reasons recorded for reopening included various expenditures that were claimed as revenue expenses but were alleged to be capital in nature, leading to a short levy of income tax. The petitioner contended that all relevant details were provided during the original assessment, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. The court examined the tax audit report and the questionnaire issued during the original assessment, which included specific queries related to the items mentioned in the recorded reasons.

4. Change of Opinion:
The petitioner argued that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The court noted that the original assessment involved a detailed examination of the tax audit report and the issues raised in the recorded reasons. The court held that the reopening was indeed based on a change of opinion as the Assessing Officer had already examined these issues during the original assessment.

5. Validity of the Order Disposing of Objections:
The petitioner contended that the order dated November 12, 2012, disposing of the objections to the reopening, was not a reasoned order as required by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. The court found that the order merely reproduced the reasons recorded and did not specifically address the objections raised by the petitioner. The court held that the order did not meet the requirement of being a "speaking order."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. Additionally, the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. The court set aside the impugned notice dated March 26, 2012, and all proceedings pursuant thereto, including the order dated November 12, 2012. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →