2016 (10) TMI 351 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that - We are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceedings will have to be held as invalid for the reason that reasons recorded by the AO do not spell out that escapement of income was due to the assessee not fully and truly disclosing all material facts necessary for completion of assessment for the relevant assessment year. Admittedly the proviso to Sec.147 of the Act was applicable in the present case. The AO in the reasons recorded has not spelt out as to how there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts. In fact there is no such allegation at all in the reasons recorded by the AO. When the original proceedings were concluded all facts with regard to increase in freight charges vis- -vis purchases were much available before the AO. In the present case, the reasons recorded by the AO does not refer to any new material that came into his possession based on which he entertained belief that income of assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The facts with regard to the freight charges and quantum of purchases for the previous year and the earlier previous year were available with the AO when the concluded the first assessment proceedings. There is no other conclusion possible except the conclusion that the reopening of assessment is not based on tangible material which came into possession of the AO after conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceedings has been merely on the basis of change of opinion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be held as not proper. Before us, the ld. DR had placed strong reliance on the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the issue of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the reassessment was initiated merely on a change of opinion.
3. Legality of the reassessment proceedings in light of the audit objections.
4. Merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding excess freight charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee contested the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the reassessment was invalid as it was initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. According to the proviso to Section 147, reassessment after four years is permissible only if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the AO did not specify any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Thus, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was held invalid due to the absence of any allegation of failure to disclose material facts.

2. Reassessment Initiated on Change of Opinion:
The tribunal examined whether the reassessment was merely based on a change of opinion. The assessee argued that the facts regarding freight charges were available during the original assessment, and no new material had come into possession of the AO. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. The tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was indeed based on a change of opinion, as the reasons recorded did not indicate any new tangible material that came into the AO's possession after the original assessment.

3. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings in Light of Audit Objections:
The tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the AO did not mention the audit objections. The tribunal emphasized that the validity of reassessment proceedings must be judged based on the reasons recorded by the AO and not on any extraneous material. The tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, which held that reasons recorded by the AO should be clear, unambiguous, and self-explanatory. Since the reasons recorded did not refer to the audit objections, the tribunal found the reassessment proceedings to be invalid.

4. Merits of the Addition Made by the AO Regarding Excess Freight Charges:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition of excess freight charges, which were based on the average sea freight rates available in the public domain. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) did not dispute the correctness of the rates adopted by the AO and even admitted that excess payments had been made. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's argument that the excess payments should be allowed as business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act, stating that any expenditure incurred for purposes that are an offense or prohibited by law is not allowable as a business expense. The tribunal, however, did not address the merits of this addition due to its conclusion that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and did not specify any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the order passed under Section 147 was canceled. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.