2015 (12) TMI 825 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - Undisputedly in the instant case, nothing has been brought out by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee as the assessee has declared all the details and raised a claim of 100% depreciation. Moreover, the issue on which assessment was reopened was already examined by the AO while allowing the claim in the original assessment. In the light of these facts, we are of the considered view that the assessment was reopened without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years from the relevant assessment year without proving income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure.
2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of expenses on temporary site accommodation, tools, minor equipment, scaffolding, erecting, shuttering, sheltering, and scaffolding.
4. Lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the appellant by the Assessing Officer during the proceedings.

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 without proving income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment after four years from the relevant assessment year without establishing that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure. The Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient reasons to justify the reopening, and the issues raised were already examined during the original assessment. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing precedents that reopening assessments without proper jurisdictional foundation is impermissible. Consequently, the assessment was quashed, and all additions made under it were deleted.

Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA:
The Revenue raised concerns about the deletion of an addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA by the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer can reassess income on any issue that has escaped assessment, even if not included in the original reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148. However, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal position and facts led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Addition of expenses on temporary site accommodation, tools, minor equipment, scaffolding, erecting, shuttering, sheltering, and scaffolding:
The assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer on various expenses, arguing that they were fully allowable expenditures. The Tribunal analyzed each expense category, considering factors such as past allowances, the nature of the expenses, and the absence of adverse findings in audits. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, highlighting inconsistencies in disallowing expenses that were historically allowed.

Issue 4: Lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the appellant:
The appellant raised concerns about not being provided with a reasonable opportunity to address the reasons for additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted this lack of opportunity and emphasized the importance of due process in such proceedings. While addressing this issue, the Tribunal highlighted the need for fair and transparent procedures in tax assessments.

In summary, the judgment addressed multiple issues related to the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the reopening of the assessment, disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, and additions of various expenses. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures, providing opportunities for appellants to present their case, and ensuring assessments are conducted within the bounds of the law.