ITAT upholds CIT(A) order quashing reassessment. Franchise fee treated as revenue expenditure.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT held that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material facts and that the franchise fee paid by the assessee should be treated as revenue expenditure. The ITAT emphasized the statutory protection under the proviso to section 147, which prevents reassessment after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts fully and truly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the franchise fee paid by the assessee should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The Revenue appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which quashed the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.12.2006, where the income was assessed at Rs. 87,27,232/-. The assessment was reopened under section 147 by issuing a notice under section 148 on 22.03.2011, based on the reason that the franchise fee of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was of a capital nature and should have been disallowed.

The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a precondition for taking action under section 148 after the expiry of four years. The AO had formed an opinion during the original assessment that the franchise fee was correctly claimed as revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion without any new facts or material on record.

The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)’s decision, emphasizing that the reassessment proceedings were initiated more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The ITAT noted that the Revenue failed to show any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The ITAT referred to the proviso to section 147, which protects the assessee from reassessment after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts. The ITAT cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that a mere change of opinion is not a valid reason for reassessment.

2. Treatment of Franchise Fee as Capital or Revenue Expenditure:

The AO treated the franchise fee of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- paid by the assessee as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and adding back the balance amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to the income. The assessee argued that the franchise fee was for the use of the superstructure of the Multiplex Cinema Building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures, and other assets for a period of seven years, and should be treated as revenue expenditure.

The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention, stating that the franchise fee was allowed as revenue expenditure in the original assessment and in the assessments for subsequent years. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO had already formed an opinion during the original assessment that the franchise fee was revenue in nature, and there was no new material to justify a different view. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to several judicial precedents supporting the assessee’s claim.

The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the reassessment was a result of a mere change of opinion without any new material facts. The ITAT emphasized that the AO had accepted the franchise fee as revenue expenditure in the original assessment and in subsequent assessments, and there was no justification for treating it as capital expenditure in the reassessment.

Conclusion:

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)’s order quashing the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT held that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material facts and that the franchise fee paid by the assessee should be treated as revenue expenditure. The ITAT emphasized the statutory protection under the proviso to section 147, which prevents reassessment after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts fully and truly.

---