Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deems reassessment based on change of opinion impermissible.

The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 was not entirely set aside, and the issue of the validity of the reassessment proceedings was restored for further examination by the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legality of the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013.
3. Requirement of set-off of losses while computing deduction under section 80IB.
4. Interest charged under section 234D and withdrawal of interest under section 244A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act:

The reassessment was initiated on the grounds that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, specifically regarding the deduction under Section 80IB. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, arguing that the reasons recorded did not specify any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for the completion of the assessment. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee’s argument and noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

2. Legality of the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013:

The reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 was not set aside in toto by the CIT under section 263. The CIT had set aside the reassessment order only to the extent of examining the deduction under sections 80IA/80IB. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal as infructuous and was duty-bound to decide the issue of the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication of the legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

3. Requirement of set-off of losses while computing deduction under section 80IB:

The assessee argued that the losses of the Mini Blast Furnace (MBF) Unit for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, which were already set off against the taxable income of those years, should not be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the current year for computing the deduction under section 80IB. The Tribunal noted that the CIT had set aside the reassessment order only to the extent of examining the deduction under sections 80IA/80IB and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate this issue as well.

4. Interest charged under section 234D and withdrawal of interest under section 244A:

The assessee contended that the interest under section 234D and the withdrawal of interest under section 244A were untenable in law. The Tribunal did not decide on this issue and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal ground regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings first. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 by the Assessing Officer and had simply dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was duty-bound to decide the issue of the validity of the reassessment proceedings and directed the CIT(A) to give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---