9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 362 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 - Held that - Both the issues were properly examined by the A.O. during the course of original assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act - The same were allowed by the A.O. after applying his mind - There was no tangible material in possession of A.O. to be treated as reasons for escapement of income - The assessment completed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act was reopened by the A.O. on the basis of same set of facts and same material which was available at the time of completing the assessment originally u/s 143(3) of the Act and the reopening was clearly based on a mere change of opinion which is not permissible - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment reopened under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on the trade mark "Nihar". 3. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees paid to Hindustan Lever Limited. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Reopened under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which cancelled the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, treating it as bad in law. The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment on the grounds that both issues raised by the A.O. had already been examined during the original assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) noted that there was no new tangible material that came into the possession of the A.O. to justify the reopening of the assessment. The reopening was deemed to be based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and was therefore invalid. 2. Disallowance of Depreciation on the Trade Mark "Nihar": The A.O. reopened the assessment on the grounds that depreciation claimed on the unregistered trade mark "Nihar" was wrongly allowed in the original assessment. The assessee contended that the issue had already been examined during the original assessment proceedings, where a detailed note justifying the claim for depreciation was submitted. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. had formed an opinion on this issue during the original assessment after due consideration of the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the A.O. had applied his mind to this issue during the original assessment, and there was no new material to justify the reopening of the assessment. 3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Non-Compete Fees Paid to Hindustan Lever Limited: The A.O. also reopened the assessment to disallow depreciation on non-compete fees paid to Hindustan Lever Limited, arguing that only 5% amortization should have been allowed instead of 25%. The assessee argued that this issue had also been examined during the original assessment proceedings, where the A.O. had raised specific queries and accepted the claim after due consideration. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. had formed an opinion on this issue as well during the original assessment, and there was no new material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and was therefore invalid. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment. The Tribunal agreed that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion and was not supported by any new tangible material, making it invalid under the law. The reassessment was therefore treated as bad in law and cancelled.
|
