2014 (2) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of re-assessment notice - recording of reason to believe - Excess exemption under section 10A - Held that - CIT(A) has observed that there was no connection between the arbitration award and the receipt/payment - The reasons to believe were recorded on March 28, 2012, which is after the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on March 15, 2011. Questions do arise about the genuineness of the said receipt as the company making the payment was a related party incorporated in the USA. However, on these issues, the reasons to believe are silent and there is no mention thereof or allegation in the grounds recorded by the Assessing Officer. Reassessment notice quashed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of exemption claim under section 10A for the amount received as an arbitration award.
3. Examination of related party transactions and their impact on the assessment.
4. Typographical error in the notes to accounts and its implications on the assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Reassessment Proceedings:
The petitioner, Nuwave E Solutions (P.) Ltd., challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax through a notice dated March 29, 2012. The reasons for reopening the case were based on the belief that the assessee had failed to fully disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment year 2007-08, leading to an excess exemption under section 10A of Rs. 43.49 crores. The court noted that the reasons to believe were recorded after the Commissioner (Appeals) had already ruled in favor of the assessee, indicating that the reassessment notice was not justified.

2. Validity of Exemption Claim under Section 10A:
The petitioner claimed an exemption under section 10A for the amount of Rs. 43.49 crores, which was initially recorded as an arbitration award in the notes to accounts. The Assessing Officer had denied this exemption, arguing that the amount was not part of the software export turnover. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the consideration received was for the export of software and not an arbitration award, identifying the note as a typographical error. The High Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the reassessment notice did not address the core issue of the typographical error.

3. Examination of Related Party Transactions:
The original assessment scrutinized transactions with CAE Solutions Inc., a related party. The Assessing Officer suspected that the entire profit was being booked in the Indian company to claim exemption under section 10A, while negligible profits were shown in the US entity. Despite these suspicions, the Commissioner (Appeals) verified the relevant details and documents, concluding that the transactions were genuine and the profits declared were reasonable. The High Court noted that the reassessment notice did not provide new evidence or allegations regarding the related party transactions.

4. Typographical Error in Notes to Accounts:
The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the mention of an arbitration award in the notes to accounts was a typographical error. This was supported by various documents, including the profit and loss account, softex forms filed with the STPI, and the Transfer Pricing Officer's order. The High Court agreed with this assessment, noting that the reassessment notice failed to address the typographical error adequately and relied solely on the notes to accounts without considering the supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the reassessment notice, emphasizing that the reasons to believe did not adequately address the issues identified by the Commissioner (Appeals). The court clarified that it did not examine the genuineness of the transaction or the merits of the original assessment order, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), or the contentions of the Revenue before the Tribunal. The court also noted that a notice under section 263 of the Act had been issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, but it did not examine its validity. The writ petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.

← Previous Next →