2018 (7) TMI 1316 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Quashes Reassessment, Allows Manufacturing Expense Deduction

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings due to impermissible change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and directing the ... Reopening of assessment - allowability on “loss on sale of stores” - Held that:- Assessing Officer had raised specific questions vide requisite notice dated 15.10.2010 with respect to allowability on “loss on sale of stores” and that the assessee had explained the same – without any follow-up question by the Assessing Officer in this regard, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer had indeed formed an opinion about the deductability of loss on sale of stores. It is also not in dispute that no new material has come to the light on account of which the present assessment proceedings were reopened. The reopening was clearly on account of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer – something which is impermissible under the scheme of the Act and in the light of binding judicial precedent. Respectfully following the esteemed views in the case of Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 69 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), we uphold the grievances of the assessee Issues Involved:1. Challenge to correctness of the order dated 25th March, 2014 passed by the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment and Change of Opinion- The assessee challenged the reassessment order passed by the AO, claiming it was void ab initio due to a change of opinion not permissible under the law.- The CIT(A) confirmed the validity of the proceedings, stating that no detailed inquiry or submissions were made on the issue.- The Assessing Officer proposed to reopen the assessment based on the loss on sale of stores being of capital nature.- The assessee argued that the AO did not form an opinion on the nature of the loss during the original assessment.- The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, stating that the AO forming an opinion is essential, even if not detailed in the assessment order.- The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed formed an opinion on the deductibility of the loss on sale of stores, and the reopening was a change of opinion, quashing the reassessment proceedings.Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction of Loss- The AO disallowed the deduction of loss on sale of stores, treating it as capital in nature.- The assessee argued that the loss was consistently claimed as manufacturing expenses and should be allowed.- The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, stating that the loss claimed on the sale of parts becoming obsolete should be allowed by deleting the disallowance made by the AO.Issue 3: Levy of Interest and Penalty- The Tribunal found the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D unjustified.- The initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also deemed unjustified by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings due to impermissible change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and directing the deduction of the loss on sale of stores as manufacturing expenses. The Tribunal also found the levy of interest and penalty to be unjustified.