2015 (11) TMI 1838 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeal Allowed: Invalid Reassessment Notice Quashed

Amruta Quarry Works Versus Income Tax Officer, S.K. Ward – 4, Modasa.

The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The court held that the ... Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- In the cases where assessments are being reopened after the end of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, and where original assessment is completed under section 143(3), it is sin qua non that the Assessing Officer demonstrates that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the related material facts. No such exercise has been carried out on the facts of the present case. In the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer it is not even his case that any material facts were withheld by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we quash the reassessment proceedings. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. Issues:1. Validity of reassessment notice under section 148.2. Correctness of the addition of alleged excess claim of depreciation.Analysis:1. The case involves a challenge to the correctness of the order dated December 31, 2014, passed by the CIT(A) concerning the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant contested the reassessment notice u/s. 148 and the addition of Rs. 3,37,238 as excess depreciation claimed. The original assessment was completed on December 9, 2010, and was reopened by the Assessing Officer on June 21, 2013, based on the belief that the appellant had claimed excess depreciation. The appellant challenged the reopening, arguing that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and thus, the reassessment notice was invalid.2. The appellant contended that the reopening beyond four years required the Assessing Officer to prove non-disclosure of material facts. The appellant maintained that all relevant details were provided during the original assessment, including the break-up of depreciation claimed. The appellant argued that it was not for them to draw conclusions on the furnished facts, and the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the depreciation claim. Additionally, the appellant cited case laws to support their position that reopening based on a mere change of opinion was impermissible. However, the Assessing Officer rejected these objections as lacking merit and proceeded with the reassessment, limiting the depreciation to 15%.3. Upon appeal, the ITAT Ahmedabad held that in cases where assessments are reopened after four years from the relevant assessment year and the original assessment is completed under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer must demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. In this case, the reasons recorded did not indicate any withholding of material facts by the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, providing relief to the appellant. The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and pronouncing the order on November 12, 2015.