9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 831 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessee company while computing the deduction u/s 80HHE has adopted incorrect turnover which has resulted excess claim of deduction U/s 80HHE to the tune of 46, 65, 749/- - Held that - The re-opening of the assessment in the case at hand through notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act issued on 22.03.2010 fails to pass the muster on both the tests. The satisfaction note does not disclose the foundation of reasons to believe as it vaguely refers to the perusal of the records without specifying the fresh tangible material that had come to light giving rise to a need for such action. Since the assessment had earlier been concluded under Section 143(3) by order dated 21.09.2007 the restrictions on the exercise of the power of re-assessment as contained in the first proviso to Section 147 would inhibit further action in absence of material showing default by the assessee to fully or truly disclose. In the above facts and circumstances we concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) that it is a case of impermissible change of opinion. The order whereby the proceedings have been re-opened for assessment under Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act thus is found to suffer from jurisdictional error. Consequently the proceedings taken out in its wake cannot sustain. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the re-assessment was due to a "change of opinion." 3. Compliance with procedural requirements during the re-assessment process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Re-assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the re-assessment order issued by the assessing authority under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment was completed on 21.09.2007, and the re-assessment notice was issued on 22.03.2010. The re-assessment was initiated based on the claim that the assessee had adopted an incorrect turnover while calculating deductions under Section 80HHE, leading to an excess claim of Rs. 46,65,749. 2. Whether the Re-assessment was due to a "Change of Opinion": The CIT(A) found that the re-assessment was based on a "change of opinion," which is not permissible under law, especially since the re-assessment was initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This conclusion was supported by the precedent set in CIT v. Kelvinator India Limited 320 ITR 561 (SC). The ITAT, however, remanded the matter to CIT(A) for re-adjudication, stating that the first appellate authority failed to give an opportunity to the AO to respond to the objections raised by the assessee. The High Court noted that the re-assessment order did not specify any new tangible material that had come to light, which is a prerequisite for re-opening an assessment under Section 147. The court emphasized that the re-assessment must be based on "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court found that the assessing authority's satisfaction note was vague and did not specify any new material, thus constituting a "change of opinion." 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements During the Re-assessment Process: The ITAT's remand order was based on procedural grounds, stating that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for the AO to be heard. However, the High Court found merit in the CIT(A)'s view on the validity of the satisfaction for re-opening the assessment. The court highlighted that the first proviso to Section 147 restricts re-opening of assessments after four years unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court concluded that the re-assessment was initiated without any new tangible material and was merely a review of the same material already scrutinized during the original assessment. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the re-assessment was impermissible due to a "change of opinion" and lack of new tangible material. The court affirmed that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 was not justified and suffered from jurisdictional error. The court answered the question of law in the affirmative against the Revenue, thereby closing the matter of re-assessment for the assessment year 2003-2004.
|
