2016 (8) TMI 218 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - We are concerned only with the question of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that he noticed the disproportionate allegation/allocation of expenditure in the accounts of non eligible business through any material extraneous to the assessment records. In fact, his entire observations contained in the reasons recorded are borne out from the data available in the assessment records. Further, as pointed out by the assessee in the objections, full separate accounts of both divisions were maintained and also presented before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment. This is therefore, a clear case where, there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Notice for reopening which was issued beyond a period of four year must therefore, fail. The same is therefore quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice for reopening assessment for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer had issued the notice based on certain additions and disallowances made during the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The notice was challenged on the grounds that the expenses were correctly allocated between the two business divisions of the company, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. The petitioner contended that separate books of accounts were maintained for each division, and all expenses were appropriately categorized and presented during the original assessment proceedings.

2. The Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment centered around the alleged incorrect apportionment of expenses between the trading and manufacturing divisions of the company, leading to an artificial inflation of income in the eligible business for claiming a larger deduction. However, the High Court focused on the aspect of whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The court noted that the Assessing Officer's observations were based on data available in the assessment records, and the petitioner had maintained separate accounts for both divisions, presenting them during the assessment process.

3. The court emphasized that there was no external evidence or material to suggest any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts. Since the Assessing Officer's contentions were solely based on the assessment records, and the petitioner had provided detailed accounts during the original assessment, the court concluded that there was no failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the notice for reopening the assessment, issued beyond the statutory four-year period, was deemed invalid and quashed by the court.

4. In summary, the High Court allowed the petition, ruling in favor of the petitioner and disposing of the case. The court held that the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 was not valid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence indicating non-disclosure and the comprehensive presentation of accounts during the original assessment proceedings.