9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 157 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Held that - The assessment order is quashed by the CIT(A) as invalid on the ground that proviso to section 14A prohibits re-opening of the assessment under section 147, for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure under section 14A the conclusion of the CIT (A), on the very face of it, is unsustainable, because the proviso is applicable only for the assessment year beginning on/or before 1st April 2001 the proviso will not be applicable for the assessment years beginning from 1st April 2002 - the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2005-06 and hence, the proviso will not bar the re-opening u/s 147 and will not be applicable the entire issue of deciding the validity of re-opening and on merits, is required to be remitted back to the CIT(A) thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration Decided in favuor of Revenue. Appeal not decided on merits Reopening u/s 148 not proper Held that - Since the matter is already remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of validity of re-opening u/s 147 on other objections of the assessee and also to deal and decide the issue on merits thus, the assessee s grounds are also remitted back to the CIT(A) Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of re-opening assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of the proviso to section 14A for re-opening assessments. 3. Merits of various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of re-opening assessment under section 148: The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue contended that the reopening of assessment was valid based on disallowance upheld by the Bombay High Court in a similar case. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that reopening the assessment solely for disallowance under section 14A was not correct as per the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the only ground for reopening was the disallowance under section 14A, which was not a valid reason for reassessment. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's case was not covered by the proviso to section 14A, which applies to assessments before April 2001. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a valid reason for reassessment. Issue 2: Applicability of the proviso to section 14A for re-opening assessments: The Tribunal clarified that the proviso to section 14A restricts reassessment only for assessment years before April 2001. In this case, the assessment year was 2005-06, making the proviso inapplicable. The Tribunal highlighted that objections regarding the legal issues were not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer. As the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue incorrectly, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper determination of the validity of the reassessment and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Issue 3: Merits of various additions made by the Assessing Officer: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer due to the focus on the validity of the reassessment. As the issue was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive review, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider and decide on the merits of the additions raised by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the cross objection filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, ensuring a complete assessment of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment of the validity of reassessment and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough examination of all legal issues involved.
|
