2014 (5) TMI 895 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds reassessment of closing stock for AY 1996-97 under Income Tax Act

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Kolkata Versus M/s. Glass Equipment (India) Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Kolkata Versus M/s. Glass Equipment (India) Ltd. - [2014] 366 ITR 59 Issues Involved:1. Valuation of closing stock without corresponding revaluation of opening stock.2. Legality of reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97.3. Whether the reassessment was barred by limitation under Section 150(2) of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of Closing Stock Without Corresponding Revaluation of Opening Stock:The Assessing Officer (AO) initially added Rs. 63,23,501/- to the income of the assessee by revaluing the closing stock without considering the opening stock. The assessee argued that if the closing stock is revalued, the opening stock must also be revalued. The AO rejected this argument, stating that the assessee had been following an erroneous method of accounting. The CIT (Appeal) later accepted the assessee's contention and directed that the opening stock for the assessment year 1997-98 should be revised, which necessitated a corresponding revision of the closing stock for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal upheld this view, directing the AO to consider the opening stock revaluation for the assessment year 1997-98 and the corresponding closing stock for 1996-97.2. Legality of Reopening the Assessment for the Assessment Year 1996-97:The AO issued a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment for the year 1996-97 based on the Tribunal's direction. The assessee challenged the reopening, arguing it was barred by limitation under Section 150(2). The CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal held that the reopening was barred by limitation, as the reassessment proceedings for the year 1996-97 could not have been initiated on the date of the Tribunal's order due to the lapse of the statutory period.3. Whether the Reassessment Was Barred by Limitation Under Section 150(2):The Tribunal's direction to revalue the closing stock of 1996-97 was issued on 12th August 2002, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 10th June 2010. The CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal found this to be barred by limitation under Section 150(2), which restricts reopening assessments if the reassessment proceedings had become time-barred by the time the order was passed. The High Court examined whether the reassessment was lawful and whether the limitation period under Section 150(2) applied. The Court noted that the reassessment could be made under Explanation 2 to Section 153(3), which allows reassessment of income excluded from one year to be included in another year, thus overriding the limitation period.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the AO's action to revalue the closing stock for the assessment year 1996-97, stating that the reassessment was not barred by limitation under Section 150(2). The assessee's contention that the reassessment was time-barred was rejected. The Court emphasized that the assessee could not challenge the legality of the revaluation order after having benefited from it for the assessment year 1997-98. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed.