2016 (9) TMI 706 - HC - Income Tax

Court Rules Reopening of Tax Assessment Without New Material Unjustified

PREMIUM FINANCE PVT LTD Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PREMIUM FINANCE PVT LTD Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Rejection of objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of assessment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioner, a private limited company and a non-banking financial corporation, challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which indicated that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner had filed its return for the assessment year 2005-06, which included details about bad debts written off. During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) had scrutinized these details and completed the assessment without disallowing the bad debts.The notice under Section 148 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 16.12.2009, stating that there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner responded by requesting the reasons for reopening, which were provided, indicating that the bad debts were not actually written off but merely credited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts, making them inadmissible under Section 36(1)(vii).The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which emphasized that post-1st April 1989, the AO has the power to reopen assessments only if there is tangible material indicating that income has escaped assessment. The concept of 'change of opinion' was highlighted as an in-built check against the misuse of this power. The court found that the AO had no new tangible material and was merely changing his opinion on the same set of facts already scrutinized during the original assessment.2. Rejection of Objections Raised by the Petitioner Against the Reopening of Assessment:The petitioner raised objections against the reopening of the assessment, arguing that the issue of bad debts had already been thoroughly scrutinized during the original assessment. The petitioner relied on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., asserting that reopening the assessment on the same issue amounted to a change of opinion, which is impermissible.The objections were rejected by the AO, who provided brief reasons for the rejection. The court examined the reasons provided for reopening the assessment and found that the AO had not considered the detailed explanations and replies submitted by the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings. The court noted that the AO had scrutinized the bad debts issue in detail, and the reopening was based on the same material, thus constituting a change of opinion.The court also referred to the decision in Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that reopening an assessment within four years based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is not permissible. The court emphasized that the AO's failure to record reasons for not disallowing the claim during the original assessment does not justify reopening the assessment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the action of the respondent authority in reopening the assessment was not justified, as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The impugned notice dated 16.12.2009 and the order rejecting the objections dated 06.08.2010 were quashed and set aside. The rule was made absolute, and the reopening of the assessment was deemed impermissible under the law.