9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1004 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - deduction claimed u/s 80IB - Held that - The assessee had furnishes details and explanations which were considered by the AO and the deduction claimed in the return of income was duly accepted, the AO cannot reopen assessment for the reason that deduction u/s 80IB was wrongly allowed and doing so would amount to reopening assessment on a change of opinion. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the belief entertained by the AO cannot be said to be a honest belief. For the reasons given above we are of the view that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was not legal and therefore the order of re-assessment is liable to be annulled and is hereby annulled. In view of the decision of the Cross Objection we are of the view that no adjudication of the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal is called for. Eligibility of deduction u/s 80IC - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that in respect of unit which claimed deduction earlier u/s 80IB of the Act such unit will continue to get the benefit of deduction of 80IC of the Act subject to the limitation of ten year period. The deduction for an undertaking making substantial expansion of the existing undertaking is not applicable in the case of the assessee. We are of the view that the conclusions drawn by CIT(A) on this issue are fully justified and does not call for any interference. Accordingly this appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of ?75,32,196 on account of the difference in balance with Central Excise and MODVAT credit. 3. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC amounting to ?7,41,46,812. 4. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D amounting to ?89,01,000. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147: The Assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under Section 147, arguing it was based on a "change of opinion" without any new tangible material. The AO's reasons for reopening the assessment included discrepancies in the balance with Central Excise and MODVAT credit, improper filing of Form 10CCB for Section 80IC deduction, and incorrect disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, stating it met the requirements of valid reasons and time limits. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the AO re-examined the same documents available during the original assessment without any new material. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., which prohibits reassessment based on a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the reassessment proceedings, deeming them illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Addition of ?75,32,196 on Account of Difference in Balance with Central Excise and MODVAT Credit: The AO added ?75,32,196 to the Assessee's income, citing a discrepancy between the balance with Central Excise (?361.73 lakhs) and MODVAT credit (?286.41 lakhs). The Assessee explained that the difference was due to the inclusion of excise duty on output and finished goods in the balance sheet, which was not considered in the MODVAT credit. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee, noting that the difference did not indicate an escapement of income and was based on a reappraisal of existing records. Therefore, the addition was deemed unjustified and was deleted by the CIT(A). 3. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IC Amounting to ?7,41,46,812: The AO disallowed the Section 80IC deduction, arguing that the Assessee failed to file Form 10CCB with the return and that the tax auditor initially omitted the deduction in the audit report. The Assessee contended that the form was submitted during the original assessment proceedings, and the omission was corrected by the auditor through a corrigendum. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the corrected audit report during the original assessment and allowed the deduction. Reopening the assessment on this basis constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted by the CIT(A). 4. Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D Amounting to ?89,01,000: The AO disallowed ?89,01,000 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the original disallowance of ?11.62 lakhs was insufficient. The Assessee argued that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08, as established by the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd Vs DCIT. The Tribunal noted that the original disallowance was made after detailed examination, and reopening the assessment on this ground was a review of the AO's predecessor's decision, amounting to a change of opinion. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal annulled the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, finding them based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material. Consequently, the additions and disallowances made by the AO were deleted, and the Assessee's cross-objection was allowed. The revenue's appeal for AY 2008-09 regarding the Section 80IC deduction was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.
|
