2016 (9) TMI 1038 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner, setting aside notice to reopen assessment for 2001-02. Valid reasons required.

N.K. PROTEINS LTD Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD)

N.K. PROTEINS LTD Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) - [2016] 389 ITR 541 Issues:1. Challenge to the notice dated 16.1.2006 reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02.2. Excess deduction under Section 80IB of the Act.3. Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to the notice reopening the assessmentThe petitioner challenged the notice reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer had issued the notice based on reasons related to excess deduction under Section 80IB of the Act and disallowance of interest paid by the assessee. The petitioner raised objections to the notice, which were rejected, leading to the petition. The petitioner argued that the issues were examined during the original assessment and could not be reopened within four years. The department contended that the issues were not examined during the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer had the authority to reopen the assessment based on valid reasons.Issue 2: Excess deduction under Section 80IB of the ActThe Assessing Officer had allowed a deduction under Section 80IB of the Act to the petitioner, which was challenged in the notice for reopening the assessment. The petitioner claimed that the deduction was examined during the original assessment. The court observed that the deduction claim was indeed scrutinized during the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer made a decision based on verification from records. Although an error was made in allowing certain amounts not eligible for deduction, it did not imply nonconsideration of the issue during the original assessment.Issue 3: Disallowance of interest paid by the assesseeThe second ground for reopening the assessment was the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed money. The petitioner argued that the interest was not disallowed during the original assessment as it was given out of owned funds and not borrowings. The court noted conflicting arguments and lack of direct proof that the issue was examined during the original assessment. However, it was highlighted that the Assessing Officer had opposed the audit party's suggestion regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure, indicating a valid reason for not reopening the assessment based on this issue.In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned notice dated 16.1.2006, allowing the petition and disposing of the case in favor of the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of valid reasons for reopening assessments and the need for issues to be thoroughly examined during the original assessment process.