2018 (9) TMI 1045 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner- company for Assessment Year 2000-01 under Sections 147/148 of the Act by issuance of Notice vide Annexure A dated 19.12.2007 to which the Assessee filed its objections on 23.01.2008 vide Annexure D which objections were however rejected by the Assessing Authority vide Annexure B on 19.02.2008 and aggrieved by the same, the Assessee preferred this writ petition. Held that - A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had stayed the further proceedings vide order dated 28.07.2008, which interim order was extended from time to time and is still continuing. In view of our aforesaid judgment rendered in connected ITAs as quoted above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the asses sing authority to undertake the said reassessment proceedings now and leaving it free for the Assessee to raise the objections within the parameters of interpretation given by us vide aforesaid Judgment quoted above before the said Assessing Authority in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of provisions of Section 47 (xiii) Proviso (b) read with Section 47A of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment delivered by Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari and Mrs. Justice S Sujatha, disposed of connected appeals interpreting the provisions of Section 47 (xiii) Proviso (b) read with Section 47A of the Income Tax Act. The court examined whether the immediate allotment of shares in exchange for capital account balances of partners of a partnership firm before the date of succession of business by a limited company was mandatory. The court noted that while the law required partners to be allotted shares in the company in the same proportion as their capital accounts in the partnership firm, it did not specify a fixed time limit for such allotment. The court emphasized that the process of determining capital account balances and allotting shares could take time, but it should be completed within a reasonable period, preferably before the end of the previous year in which the succession of business takes place.

The court found that in the case at hand, all conditions except the timing of allotment of shares were satisfied. The delay of 3 to 4 years in allotting shares was deemed unreasonable. The court highlighted that partners were deprived of dividends due to this delay, which was not a sufficient reason. The court emphasized that a reasonable period for allotting shares should not extend to several years and that the company was rightly held liable for capital gains tax due to non-compliance with the conditions of allotting shares within a reasonable timeframe.

The court held that under Section 47A(3) of the Act, if conditions like the timely allotment of shares are not met, the capital gains tax liability falls on the successor company. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that shares must be allotted before the end of the relevant previous year in which the business succession occurs. Consequently, the court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee, affirming that the allotment of shares must be completed within the relevant previous year.

In a related Writ Petition, reassessment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-company for Assessment Year 2000-01. The petitioner's objections were rejected by the Assessing Authority, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the judgment on connected appeals, allowing the assessing authority to proceed with reassessment while granting the Assessee the liberty to raise objections within the interpretation provided in the judgment.