2015 (10) TMI 2649 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal: Windmills as separate units for deduction, invalid assessment reopening

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that each windmill should be treated as a separate unit for deduction under section 80IA. The ... Reopening of assessment - AO denied the benefit of 80lA by treating all the windmills together and there was net loss from the windmill activity all put together - Held that:- According to the Assessing Officer, all the windmills are to be treated as a single undertaking and therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to the relief allowed in the assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the Assessing Officer and observed that each windmill is to be considered independent and separate and as a consequence deduction u/s 80IA to be computed. As such, the issue in dispute travelled upto the Tribunal also at the instance of the Department. The Tribunal vide order [2014 (11) TMI 1121 - ITAT CHENNAI] agreed with the view of the CIT(A) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. As issue is already settled in favour of the assessee and the Assessing Officer precluded by taking the same issue for reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by reopening the concluded issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of jurisdiction for reopening of assessment u/s 1472. Merit of the additionIssue 1: Validity of jurisdiction for reopening of assessment u/s 147:The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for AY 2006-07 based on the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by the assessee. The assessee contended that the details were already provided during the original assessment u/s 143(3) and the reopening was a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections, stating that the reassessment and appeal proceedings are parallel and do not merge. The CIT(A) had earlier rejected an enhancement proposal for the same issue. The CIT(A) observed that each windmill should be treated as a separate unit for deduction u/s 80IA, allowing the claim for the present assessment year. The Tribunal also upheld this view, settling the issue in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the reopening of assessment after four years was deemed bad in law, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross objection.Issue 2: Merit of the addition:The CIT(A) decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition. The Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA by treating all windmills together, resulting in a net loss from windmill activities. However, the CIT(A) held that each windmill should be considered a separate unit for deduction purposes. The CIT(A) allowed the claim for the present assessment year, aligning with the decision in a previous appeal. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition, while the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment. The Tribunal's decision on the validity of reopening the assessment impacted the outcome of the addition, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's cross objection.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of the validity of jurisdiction for reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the merit of the addition, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects and decisions involved in the case.