2022 (2) TMI 158 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - As amendment to section 115JB of the Act by the Finance Act, 2009 w.r.e 01.04.2001 by which Explanation 1 to the section has been inserted book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act had to be reworked out. - HELD THAT - All the facts were available before the Assessing Officer when he framed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It can be seen from the computation of total income mentioned elsewhere, the Assessing Officer has computed book profit as per MAT u/s. 115JB of the Act.As decided in ODAFONE WEST LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2013 (7) TMI 536 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT that beyond a period of 4 years, retrospective amendment u/s. 115JB of the Act could not be a ground for reassessment. Such legal proposition requires no authority of law. We are of the considered view that all the relevant facts were available on record and it could not be said that at the time when the assessee filed return, he had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment because the amendment which was introduced retrospectively was not there. No hesitation to hold that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts to justify the reopening of the completed assessment. Therefore, we set aside the notice dated 04.12.2012 issued u/s. 148 of the Act and quash the same resulting into the quashing of the assessment order dated 22.03.2013 framed u/s. 143(3)/148 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment order under section 143(3)/148
2. Allegation of income escaping assessment without tangible material
3. Reassessment based on change of opinion
4. Disallowance of claim of performance warranty
5. Recomputation of book profit under section 115JB
6. Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Analysis:

1. Validity of reassessment order under section 143(3)/148:
The appellant challenged the reassessment order, contending that there was no tangible material to allege income escaping assessment. The Tribunal observed that the reasons for reopening the assessment did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal noted that all relevant facts were available during the original assessment, including provisions for tax and warranty expenses. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to section 115JB could not be a ground for reassessment beyond four years. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

2. Allegation of income escaping assessment without tangible material:
The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons for reopening the assessment did not establish any failure on the part of the assessee to fully disclose material facts. It was noted that the assessee had provided all necessary details during the original assessment, including provisions for tax and warranty expenses. Relying on legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that there was no failure to disclose material facts justifying the reassessment, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

3. Reassessment based on change of opinion:
The appellant argued that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion on the completed assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal, however, held that the reasons for reassessment did not indicate any failure to disclose material facts. Considering the available facts during the original assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was not justified, leading to the cancellation of the reassessment proceedings.

4. Disallowance of claim of performance warranty:
The appellant contested the disallowance of the claim of performance warranty, asserting it as an ascertained liability that should be allowed. The Tribunal examined the details provided in the balance sheet and profit and loss account, noting the specific mention of warranty expenses. The Tribunal held that the claim for performance warranty should be allowed, as it was a legitimate liability, leading to the allowance of this ground of appeal.

5. Recomputation of book profit under section 115JB:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of recomputing the book profit under section 115JB by adding performance warranty and deferred tax liability. The appellant argued that such adjustments were not contemplated under section 115JB and should be deleted. Citing legal judgments, the Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to section 115JB could not be a basis for reassessment beyond four years. Consequently, the adjustments were deemed unwarranted, and the Tribunal directed their deletion.

6. Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The appellant requested the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing the delayed receipt of the CIT(A) order. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and accepted the appellant's affidavit for condonation. As the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame from the actual receipt of the order, the delay was condoned, ensuring the appeal's consideration on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reassessment order and addressing various grounds of appeal related to the validity of reassessment, disallowance of warranty expenses, and recomputation of book profit under section 115JB. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of failure to disclose material facts and legal principles governing reassessment beyond the statutory period.

← Previous Next →