9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 292 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - eligible reason to believe - Held that - The assessee had made similar disclosure of its receipts in the return of income and also the auditor in the audit report in Form No.3CEB. Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB Vs. DDIT (2018 (2) TMI 249 - ITAT PUNE) we uphold the order of CIT(A) in holding that reopening of assessment proceedings in the absence of any tangible material to hold that there was reason to believe of escapement of income, thus is not valid in law. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. In assessment year 2007-08, the facts are identical but the position of appeals are reverse. The Revenue is in appeal on merits of the case and the Cross Objections have been raised by the assessee against reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147/148. Same reasons for reopening the assessment as in assessment year 2006-07 have been recorded. The assessee had declared the said receipts in its computation of income and claimed them to be exempt and similar declaration was made by the auditor in the audit report. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Taxability of receipts for IT Support Services as Fees for Technical Services and Royalty under Article 12 of the Tax treaty between India and Sweden. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The primary issue in the appeals was the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the reopening was justified based on the belief that income had escaped assessment, citing specific reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that all material facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no "tangible material" to justify the reopening beyond the four-year period. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in similar cases, including the assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06, where it was held that reopening of assessment without new tangible material was not permissible. The Tribunal reiterated that the reasons for reopening must be based on tangible material indicating escapement of income. In the absence of such material, the reopening was deemed invalid. The Tribunal noted that the original assessments were completed under section 143(1), and the Assessing Officer did not have new information or tangible material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal emphasized that the "reason to believe" should have a live link with tangible material, and mere reappraisal of existing facts was insufficient for reopening assessments. 2. Taxability of IT Support Services Receipts: The assessee also raised objections regarding the taxability of receipts for IT Support Services amounting to INR 2,75,19,685, arguing that these should not be considered as Fees for Technical Services or Royalty under Article 12 of the Tax treaty between India and Sweden. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had not adjudicated on this specific objection. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue in the current judgment, as the primary focus was on the validity of the reopening of assessments. However, it noted that similar issues had been raised in the assessee's cross objections and appeals for different assessment years. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments under section 147 was invalid in the absence of tangible material indicating escapement of income. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the assessee became academic. For assessment year 2008-09, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the reassessment proceedings being declared invalid and the remaining grounds becoming academic. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced on January 23, 2018.
|
