2014 (7) TMI 960 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe Held that - The assessee relied upon various judgments, but, none of the judgments cited is rendering any help to the assessee - the issue on merit is admittedly covered against the assessee and thus it goes to show that the belief formed by the AO ssessing Officer regarding escapement of income is real and on the basis of tangible material there was no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Deduction u/s 80IB Held that - while deciding the appeal of the assessee it has been held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act - the assessee is not eligible for such deduction u/s 80IB Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessments under section 147/143(3).
2. Entitlement to deduction under section 80-IB.
3. Reallocation of interest and remuneration between different units.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessments under Section 147/143(3):

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessments on the grounds that it was based on old material without new evidence, thus not justified. The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements to support their claim that reopening was invalid without new tangible material. The Revenue countered by citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., arguing that the assessment was valid under section 292B despite any procedural defects.

The tribunal examined the applicability of various cited judgments and concluded that the reopening was justified because it was based on subsequent scrutiny assessments from the previous year, which provided tangible material indicating income escapement. The tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments, finding that none of the cited judgments applied to the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

2. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-IB:

The assessee argued that they were entitled to deductions under section 80-IB, including on duty drawback receipts, claiming these were part of the cost of goods exported and not incentives. The tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court's judgment in Liberty India Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that duty drawback receipts are not derived from the industrial undertaking and thus not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB. Respectfully following this precedent, the tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for deductions under section 80-IB for all relevant assessment years.

3. Reallocation of Interest and Remuneration between Different Units:

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to reallocate interest and remuneration between different units, arguing that the reallocation was not justified. The tribunal found this issue to be academic because the determination of interest and remuneration allocation was only relevant for computing deductions under section 80-IB, which the assessee was not eligible for, as decided in the previous issue. Therefore, the tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order without delving into the merits of the reallocation issue.

Conclusion:

All appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed. The tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, denied the assessee's claims for deductions under section 80-IB, and found the reallocation issue to be academic. The tribunal's decisions were consistent with the Supreme Court's precedent in Liberty India and other relevant judicial pronouncements.

← Previous Next →