TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes Income Tax Act notice for Assessment Year 2011-12 due to lack of material particulars</h1> <h3>M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax</h3> The Court quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12, ruling in favor of the petitioner. It was held that ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment beyond a period of four years - Reason to believe - as per revenue assessee claimed excess depreciation against allowable depreciation - petitioner is not entitled to get the remaining additional depreciation on new plant and machineries put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year - HELD THAT:- On perusal of reasons to believe indicate that on verification of Annexure “F” of the Tax Audit Report and the notes thereto, it was found that the assessee had not quantified the amount of additional depreciation @ 10% on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding year and had made passing remarks without substantiating its claim. What is evident is that the claim for reopening the assessment has been based on the very annexure of the audit report which was available to the revenue in the exercise that was carried out during the scrutiny assessment. The reason to believe therefore cannot be said to be based on any new of fresh tangible material and cannot therefore be used as a tool to reopen the assessment proceedings. What is also evident from the exercise of the scrutiny assessment carried out in the case of the petitioner is that the assessee has been claiming additional depreciation at the rate of 20% on the eligible plant and machinery by virtue of the provisions of Section 32(1(iia). The assessment has been reopened beyond a period of four years and it is not a case where it can be said that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The tax audit report specifically stated that the balance of additional depreciation pertaining to eligible assets has been claimed and a schedule was annexed. A detailed questionnaire was sent to the petitioner which was answered including the question on the claim of depreciation. A specific query was raised into the claim made by the petitioner on higher depreciation on motor vehicle under section 32 of the Act. All these lead to a circumstance to suggest that during the course of original proceedings, the claim of the depreciation allowance as made by the Assessing Officer was examined and after considering the Return of Income, Tax Audit Report and other submissions to the questionnaire that the Assessing Officer had restricted his exercise only to the issue of allowability of higher depreciation on motor vehicle. Moreover, if in the perception of the Assessing Officer, the report was wanting for details then information could have been called for but couldn't have been taken as a cue for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 148 - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:The judgment involves the quashing of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, based on the contention of the petitioner that there was no failure to disclose material particulars and the income had not escaped assessment.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Failure to disclose material particularsThe petitioner argued that there was no failure to disclose all material particulars, emphasizing that the income did not escape assessment due to lack of disclosure. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was initiated based on audit objections, which were not acceptable as reasons to believe for reopening the assessment.Issue 2: Assessment based on depreciation claimThe respondent claimed that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment due to excess depreciation claimed. The respondent highlighted that the petitioner had not quantified additional depreciation on eligible assets, leading to an incomplete disclosure. It was argued that the claim for reopening the assessment lacked fresh tangible material and was solely based on the audit report available during scrutiny assessment.Issue 3: Reassessment beyond four yearsThe Court observed that the assessment had been reopened beyond four years, but it was not established that the petitioner failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The tax audit report indicated that the additional depreciation had been claimed, and detailed responses were provided to the questionnaire, including queries on depreciation claims.Issue 4: Validity of reassessmentThe Court concluded that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent order disposing of objections were quashed and set aside. It was determined that the reassessment was not justified as there was no failure to disclose material particulars and the reasons for reopening were not based on new tangible material.The judgment allowed the petition, making the rule absolute, and set aside the notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
TaxTMI 
