2014 (1) TMI 1896 - AT - Income Tax

Income Tax Tribunal Upholds Decision, Reopening Assessment Deemed Invalid.

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ruling that the reopening of the assessment was not valid due to being a ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - failure on the assessee’s part to disclose truly all particulars in the shape of legal and professional expenses - Reopening beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year - HELD THAT:- No paper book has been filed by the Revenue controverting the aforesaid finding of fact. Similarly, there is one thing more which we take notice of. The impugned assessment year is 2004-05. The reopening notice in the present case has been issued on 28.3.2011 - it is beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year i.e on 31.3.2005. A perusal of the first proviso to section 148 of the Act makes it clear that in case the reopening is made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it can be only resorted to in case of failure on assessee’s part in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Undisputedly, this failure is nowhere pinpointed in the assessment order. In these circumstances, we observe that not only the impugned reopening is mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer qua legal and professional expenses, but also it is hit by first proviso to section 148 as there is no failure on the assessee’s part in disclosing truly and fully all necessary particulars. Hence, on both these counts, we hold the reopening as not sustainable in the eyes of law - Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on change of opinion and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment based on Change of OpinionThe Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding the reopening of assessment as bad in the eyes of law due to being a mere change of opinion. The Revenue argued that since there was a failure on the assessee's part to disclose all particulars regarding legal and professional expenses during the original assessment, the Assessing Officer rightly reopened the assessment. However, the CIT(A) upheld the assessee's arguments, stating that the reopening was indeed a mere change of opinion. The CIT(A) emphasized that the original assessment had thoroughly examined the details provided by the assessee, including the legal expenses, and concluded that the Assessing Officer had changed his opinion without any valid basis. The CIT(A) cited legal precedents to support the position that mere change of opinion cannot be a valid reason for reopening an assessment.Issue 2: Failure to Disclose Fully and Truly All Material FactsThe Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice under section 148 to the assessee, contending that the income from interest and the legal and professional expenses claimed were not allowable. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed disclosed all necessary particulars during the original assessment, including the legal and professional expenses incurred. The CIT(A) noted that the reopening notice was issued beyond the permissible four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. According to the first proviso to section 148 of the Act, reopening beyond this period is only allowed in case of failure on the assessee's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Since there was no failure pinpointed in the assessment order, the reopening was deemed not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of the assessment was not valid due to being a mere change of opinion and the absence of failure on the assessee's part to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the original assessment order was upheld.