2018 (4) TMI 171 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - denial of natural justice - Held that - AO has not passed any order whether speaking or non speaking disposing of the objections as is evident from the record and thereby violated the principles of natural justice in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft s India P. Ltd. vs ITO 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court - the impugned reopening proceedings are bad in law and not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08.
2. Addition of provision for deferred tax debited to the Profit and Loss Account for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act.
3. Addition on account of sales-tax subsidy, provision for doubtful debts and advances, and provisions for diminution in value of investments for Assessment Year 2007-08.
4. Challenge to the re-assessment proceedings and additions before the CIT(A).
5. Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the additions made for Assessment Year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. The re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08. The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the re-assessment proceedings were bad, leading to the deletion of the additions made. The revenue challenged these deletions, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act was not valid due to the retrospective amendment to Section 115JB not being in effect at the time of the notice issuance.

2. Regarding the addition of the provision for deferred tax liability, the Tribunal relied on precedents to support its decision. It cited cases like M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Rallis India Ltd., where it was established that the retrospective amendment to Section 115JB did not apply at the time of the notice issuance. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued before the amendment came into effect was invalid, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court.

3. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the Tribunal noted that the AO failed to consider the cross objections filed by the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Citing the case of GKN Driveshaft's India P. Ltd. vs ITO, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory requirement for the AO to furnish reasons for reopening assessments within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found the reopening proceedings to be bad in law due to the AO's failure to provide reasons, leading to the dismissal of both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles, including the necessity of complying with jurisdictional requirements and ensuring natural justice in assessment proceedings. By upholding the CIT(A)'s order and dismissing both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards in tax assessments.