Tribunal Rules Against Re-Assessment; Original Views Upheld, No Escapement of Income Found Under Amended Section 147.

The Tribunal quashed the orders of CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer under section 147, allowing the appeals of the assessee. It ruled that re-assessment proceedings initiated based on audit objections were valid under the amended provisions of section 147. However, it concluded that income had not escaped assessment since the original assessments were aligned with one of the possible views accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1). Therefore, the Tribunal found no basis for re-opening the assessments, siding with the assessee on the issue of escapement of income.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147.
2. Whether there was escapement of income.

Summary:

Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings u/s 147:
The main issue in these appeals was the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147. The assessee, a Development Officer with LIC of India, had deducted 40% of incentive bonus as expenditure in his income computation. Initially, no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) for assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, while such deductions were disallowed for assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 but were deleted in appeal. Subsequently, based on the Accountant General's objection citing CBDT instruction No. 1774, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 148 for re-opening the assessments. The Tribunal rejected the first contention of the assessee that re-assessment proceedings could not be initiated on the basis of audit objections, stating that the amended provisions of section 147 effective from 1-4-1989 authorize the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments if there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, without the condition of 'information' as required in the old provisions.

Escapement of Income:
The second contention was whether there was escapement of income. The Tribunal noted that there was a divergence of opinion among various High Courts on whether deductions could be allowed against incentive bonuses received by Development Officers. Majority of High Courts held that such incentive is part of salary and no deduction is allowed except standard deduction, while the Gujarat High Court allowed deductions. The Tribunal observed that the original assessments were in accordance with one of the possible views and accepted by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1). Citing Supreme Court judgments in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd., CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd., and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that if the original assessment is in accordance with one of the possible views, it cannot be said that income escaped assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the orders of CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer u/s 147, allowing the appeals of the assessee.

---