2012 (4) TMI 487 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes notice under Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2004-05

Bombay Stock Exchange Limited Versus Deputy Director of IncomeTax

The Court quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year ... Validity of reopening of assessment beyond 4 years – Trust - A.Y. 2004-05 – Revenue contended that provision made in the accounts cannot be treated as income applied to the objects of the trust hence escapement of income – not entitled for double deduction by way of claiming both capital expenditure as application of income and depreciation on capital assets – Held that:- Second contention of revenue is not sustained, since same has been decided in favor of assessee for A.Y. 2003-04.Further, since Income & Expenditure A/c clearly reflects provision for doubtful accounts it is ex facie, evident that there was no suppression of material facts by the assessee. Therefore, in absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, notice issued u/s 148 is quashed – Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 based on two grounds.2. Validity of the notice issued beyond the four-year period.3. Failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 to reopen an assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05. The notice was issued on 11 March 2011, beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The reasons for reopening the assessment included discrepancies in the application of trust funds and claiming both capital expenditure and depreciation on fixed assets. The first ground related to the provision for doubtful accounts while the second ground was similar to a previous case that had been decided in favor of the assessee by a Division Bench of the Court.2. The Court noted that the second ground for reopening the assessment had already been addressed in a previous judgment where it was held that the additions sought were impermissible in law. As this judgment had not been challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality, the second ground for reopening the assessment for the year in question could not be sustained.3. Regarding the first ground for reopening, the Court analyzed the details provided by the assessee in the income and expenditure account, highlighting that there was no suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Court referred to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of establishing a vital link between the reasons for reopening and the evidence of non-disclosure, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 11 March 2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the validity of the notice issued for reopening an assessment under the Income Tax Act 1961, highlighting the requirements for disclosure of material facts by the assessee and the necessity for the Assessing Officer to establish a failure in this regard. The Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the reasons for reopening and the failure to establish a vital link between non-disclosure and the evidence presented.