2016 (12) TMI 354 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on the basis of reassessment notice - reasons to believe - ITAT felt that the reopening was unwarranted - Held that - The expression reason to believe , was the subject matter of extensive discussion by full bench of this court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited(2002 (4) TMI 37 - DELHI High Court ). The full bench laid down by reasoning prepositions as to what can constitute valid reason to believe . The Supreme Court considered the correctness of that judgment. The court held that the information received by the assessing officer after completion of assessment alone is the sound foundation for exercising the power under Section 147 read with Section 148 . In these circumstances, the arguments of the revenue that the previous contrary ruling in ALA Firm s case (1991 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) continues to govern the field cannot be countenanced. The judgment in ALA Firm s case (supra) concerned an assessment for the year 1961-62. Section 147 was amended in 1989. Consequently, the declaration of law in ALA Firm s case (supra) was of the pre-existing law. The law as exists was dealt with in Kelvinator of India Limited s case (supra) which has pronounced the correct position decisively. So far as the judgment in Giri Lal s case (2016 (8) TMI 1010 - SUPREME COURT) goes, the court notices that the assessee had challenged the reopening which was rejected by the High Court. The order as it were is a mere confirming one and has not discussed or dealt with the previous authority in Kelvinator of India Limited s case (supra) which is a judgment in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and per se binding having regard to the larger bench composition. No substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of additions made on the basis of reassessment notice.
2. Reopening of assessment based on existing material.
3. Interpretation of "reason to believe" for reassessment.
4. Precedence of judgments in relation to reopening assessments.
5. Application of judgments in specific cases.
6. Existence of substantial question of law.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of the validity of additions made on the basis of a reassessment notice. The Court noted that the ITAT had held the additions to be unsustainable in law, leading to the revenue's grievance against the common order of the ITAT where cross appeals were disposed of.

2. The Court examined the reopening of the assessment based on existing material. The original assessment under Section 143 (3) involved claims for bad and doubtful debts, which led to the reassessment notice issued by the assessing officer. The ITAT deemed the reopening unwarranted, citing relevant legal precedents, including the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited.

3. The interpretation of "reason to believe" for reassessment was extensively discussed. The Court referred to the full bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, emphasizing that information received after assessment completion is crucial for exercising power under Section 147. The Court rejected the revenue's argument based on the previous ruling in ALA Firm vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.

4. The Court delved into the precedence of judgments concerning the reopening of assessments. It highlighted the amendments to Section 147 and the significance of the Kelvinator of India Limited case in establishing the correct legal position. The Court differentiated between earlier judgments and the current legal framework.

5. Specific cases, such as ALA Firm vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Giri Lal and Company vs. Income Tax Officer Bombay, were discussed in relation to the application of judgments. The Court underscored the binding nature of the Kelvinator of India Limited judgment and its relevance in determining the legality of reassessment actions.

6. Finally, the Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law warranting further consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the detailed analysis and interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents provided throughout the judgment.