Tribunal rejects reassessment based on change of opinion, affirms royalty expenses as revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any new material facts, which is impermissible under section 147. The Tribunal also affirmed the classification of royalty expenses as revenue expenditure, consistent with prior judicial decisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 23/09/2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of royalty expenses as capital or revenue in nature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147:

The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had issued a notice under section 148, claiming that the assessee's income had escaped assessment due to the incorrect classification of royalty expenses as revenue expenditure.

The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment on the grounds of "change of opinion" by the AO, noting that all material facts regarding the royalty payments were fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. The AO had scrutinized these details and formed an opinion that the royalty payments were revenue in nature. No new facts or material were brought on record to justify the reassessment, and the successor AO merely recorded a different opinion.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that section 147 does not allow reassessment based on a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have "tangible material" to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal also cited the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Munjal Showa Ltd., reinforcing that reassessment cannot be initiated on the basis of a change of opinion when the issue has already been examined during the original assessment.

2. Classification of Royalty Expenses:

The AO had treated the royalty expenses of Rs. 2,39,60,828 paid to Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd. (SMCC) as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation at 25% and adding the balance amount to the assessee's income. The assessee argued that these expenses were revenue in nature and had been correctly claimed as such in the original assessment.

The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both noted that the issue of royalty expenses had been thoroughly examined during the original assessment proceedings, where the AO accepted them as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also referenced the coordinate bench's decision and the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, which held that the payment made on account of royalty and fee for technical services was revenue in nature.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion without any new material facts, which is not permissible under section 147. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the classification of royalty expenses as revenue expenditure, consistent with prior judicial decisions in the assessee's case.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the Court on 23/09/2015.

---