2016 (3) TMI 831 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed challenging reassessment for lack of new grounds.

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Versus Patel Kantilal Jivramdas & Co.

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to reopen assessment proceedings. The Court found that the ... Reopening of assessment - ITAT upholding the decision of CIT(A) wherein annulled the re-opening of assessment proceedings by stating that it was a mere change of opinion based on the opinion/views of audit party - Held that:- As can be seen from the reasons recorded, all that is reflected therein is the opinion of the audit party that 0.5% should be considered as reasonable shortage and excess shortage should be disallowed and accordingly an excess shortage of 2.02% is required to be disallowed. It is the opinion of the audit party that excess shortage had been disallowed resulting into an underassessment to the tune of ₹ 33,04,144/-. Thus, from the reasons recorded, there is nothing to disclose that the Assessing Officer has formed any opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment All that the reasons recorded reflect is the opinion of the audit party. Section 147 of the Act provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may reopen the assessment in terms thereof. Thus, it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer which is necessary for reopening the assessment. In the present case, on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, it is evident that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that this is a case of clear change of opinion based on conjectures and a case where the opinion was not of the Assessing Officer but clearly of the audit party. The Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:Challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the reopening of assessment proceedings based on the opinion of the audit party.Analysis:The appellant, challenging an order under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, disputed the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) regarding the reopening of assessment proceedings. The appellant raised a substantial question of law questioning the ITAT's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s annulment of the reassessment based on a mere change of opinion by the audit party. The assessment year in question was 2005-06, with the assessee initially declaring a total income of &8377;2,89,980/-, which was later revised to &8377;2,99,980/- after scrutiny. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment in 2010, citing a shortage in the assessee's trading business as the reason for underassessment. The AO disallowed an excess shortage of &8377;34,73,180/- based on the audit party's opinion, leading to the addition of this amount to the total income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the reopening was a clear case of change of opinion solely based on the audit party's views, without any new information. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, prompting the appellant's challenge.The High Court analyzed the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and found that they solely reflected the audit party's opinion on the reasonable shortage percentage and the disallowed excess shortage. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is crucial for reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Act. In this case, the Court observed that the AO did not form an independent opinion but relied on the audit party's views, indicating a clear change of opinion without any new grounds for reassessment. Consequently, the Court agreed with the CIT(A) that this was a case of conjecture and not based on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, warranting the annulment of the reassessment proceedings. The Court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, as the reasons recorded did not indicate any escaped income chargeable to tax. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law for consideration.