2016 (10) TMI 1393 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed as reopening assessment beyond four years invalid without material facts concealment

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1, Surat Versus M/s. J.K. Paper Limited

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1, Surat Versus M/s. J.K. Paper Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the reopening of assessment beyond four years under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Adjustment of MAT credit entitlement while computing book profit under Section 115JB.3. Addition on account of exchange fluctuation on repayment of loan being capital in nature.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Validity of the reopening of assessment beyond four years under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:The primary grievance of the Revenue was that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment order made under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The original assessment was made under Section 143(3) on 26.12.2008, and the assessment was reopened by a notice issued under Section 148 on 23.03.2012, beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons for reopening included the omission to add back the provision of FBT of Rs. 1,05,74,900/- and the expenditure of Rs. 58,60,628/- incurred on social forestry to earn exempted income. The Tribunal found that the provision of FBT was mentioned in the Profit and Loss account, which was before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings, indicating no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts. Similarly, the expenditure of Rs. 58,60,628/- was added by the Assessing Officer in the computation of income as per the normal provisions of the Act. Therefore, there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In light of the proviso to Section 147, the Tribunal found no error in the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.2. Adjustment of MAT credit entitlement while computing book profit under Section 115JB:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) was unjustified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,13,84,689/- made on account of adjustment of MAT credit entitlement while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee credited an amount of Rs. 6,13,84,689/- as MAT credit entitlement, which was not reduced from the net profit for computing book profit. The assessee argued that MAT credit entitlement is a form of deferred tax and should be adjusted accordingly. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, stating that MAT credit is deferred tax and should be adjusted as per Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the MAT credit entitlement was shown separately in the Profit and Loss account and should be deducted while computing book profit. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.3. Addition on account of exchange fluctuation on repayment of loan being capital in nature:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,83,67,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 2,88,96,000/- made on account of exchange fluctuation on the repayment of loan, arguing that the repayment was capital in nature. The Assessing Officer had added the entire amount, but the CIT(A) found that Rs. 1,83,67,000/- was on account of revenue and directed its deletion. The Tribunal noted that the bifurcation of the foreign currency loss was not verified by the Assessing Officer and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details provided by the assessee and decide the issue afresh, giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal on this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the reopening of assessment and the adjustment of MAT credit entitlement while computing book profit. However, it remanded the issue of exchange fluctuation loss for verification, allowing the appeal in part for statistical purposes. The cross objections of the assessee were dismissed as not pressed.