2018 (2) TMI 347 - AT - Income Tax

Initiation of re-assessment proceedings - validity of reopening of assessment - proof of escapement of income - Held that - AO for initiating the re-opening of the assessment proceedings beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year has to establish that there was escapement of income chargeable to tax because of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for the assessment. Neither in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor in the order of re-assessment u/s147 of the Act. The AO has not brought out facts to show any omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts when the original assessment was completed. We are of the view that the re-opening of the completed assessment u/s 143(3) beyond the period of 4 years cannot be justified. We hold that the re-opening of the assessment is beyond the time contemplated by the proviso to sec.147 of the Act and therefore, initiation of re-assessment proceedings is held to be bad. The decisions cited by the assessee referred to in paragraph 9 and 10 support the conclusions that reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. For the reasons given above, we allow the grounds raised in the cross objection and hold that the reassessment proceedings are not validly initiated. Therefore order of the reassessment is liable to be annulled. Since the re-assessment order has has been annulled, the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal does not require any adjudication. - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Failure to dispose of objections filed by the assessee against the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The core issue revolves around the validity of the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the re-assessment on the grounds that the initiation was beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material.

The original assessment for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 was completed under Section 143(3) on 26.12.2008. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 on 01.03.2013, citing reasons that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, particularly regarding a loss on currency swap transactions amounting to ?2,67,46,608. However, the assessee contended that all relevant materials were disclosed during the original assessment, and the notice was issued merely due to a change of opinion.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not have any fresh tangible material at the time of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. This was corroborated by the fact that the reasons recorded by the AO were based on the original assessment records. The Tribunal referenced several judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), which mandates that the AO must have tangible material to justify reopening an assessment.

Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. This is a critical requirement under the proviso to Section 147, especially when the reassessment is initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

2. Failure to dispose of objections filed by the assessee against the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment:

The assessee also argued that the AO failed to dispose of the objections filed against the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. This procedural lapse further invalidated the re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the AO did not address the objections before proceeding with the re-assessment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the re-assessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material and were initiated beyond the permissible time limit without establishing any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was annulled, and the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal did not require adjudication. The cross objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Order Pronouncement:

The order was pronounced in the Court on 02.02.2018.

← Previous Next →