Tribunal Cancels Reassessment Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

Naween Transport Company Versus ACIT Circle -2, Hazaribagh

Naween Transport Company Versus ACIT Circle -2, Hazaribagh - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with TDS provisions under section 194C and its impact on disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
4. Alleged failure to disclose material facts fully and truly during the original assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The appellant contended that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was illegal, excessive, and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) disallowed the appeal based on the introduction of new evidence, which was actually produced before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The appellant further argued that the CIT(A) ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid, and focused on technical issues rather than the merits of the case.

2. Validity of the Reopening of the Assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the action of the AO on both merits and the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under section 147. The appellant argued that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment by issuing a notice under section 148 without fulfilling the ingredients of section 147/148. The appellant highlighted that the original assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed under section 143(3), and the notice for reassessment was issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY. The appellant contended that the AO did not meet the additional conditions imposed under the first proviso to section 147, and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion on the same issue, which is not permissible in law.

3. Compliance with TDS Provisions under Section 194C and its Impact on Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):
The appellant argued that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liability were duly complied with, and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) for disallowance of expenses were not attracted. The appellant pointed out that the original assessment was made after proper inquiry on the deductibility of TDS under section 194C and other provisions of the Act. The appellant also referred to the reasons recorded by the AO and contended that there was no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose any material fact fully and truly at the time of the original assessment.

4. Alleged Failure to Disclose Material Facts Fully and Truly During the Original Assessment:
The tribunal observed that the AO did not reference the earlier assessment made under section 143(3) in the reasons recorded for reopening. There was no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and truly. The tribunal noted that the AO's action was based on a mere review of existing facts, which is not permissible in law. The tribunal emphasized that the reopening of a completed assessment under section 143(3) is not permissible on a mere change of opinion. The tribunal found that the conditions stipulated under the first proviso to section 147 were not complied with, and the action of the AO was arbitrary and mechanical.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be annulled. The consequent reassessment order was struck down and canceled as bad in law. The tribunal also addressed the objection raised by the Revenue regarding the challenge to jurisdiction being raised for the first time before the Tribunal, stating that the question of lack of jurisdiction is a pure question of law capable of being adjudged based on material on record. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.