2025 (3) TMI 725 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment reopening under section 147 upheld after assessee claimed same deduction twice without full disclosure

The Madras HC dismissed the assessee's writ appeal challenging reopening of assessment under section 147. The assessee had claimed the same deduction ... Reopening of assessment - appellant has claimed the deduction twice, thus such double deduction is impermissible - HELD THAT:- The appellant/assessee has made a wrong claim and has also not furnished full and true disclosure at the time of original assessment proceedings. Even though the proceedings taken are beyond the period, the AO satisfied that there was a double deduction and the failure on the part of the assessee to make a proper return and disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for reopening of the assessment. In the present case, it is the duty of the assessee to place all the materials fully and truly which are necessary for the purpose of grant of relief. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts by placing necessary account books and other evidence, it is open to the AO to assume jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceedings. AO found that it was false claim and in such view, after the completion of four years from the end of the assessment year, in which the assessment was made u/s 143(3) earlier, AO has correctly reopened the assessment and the learned Single Judge has correctly upheld the action of the AO. Further, assessee filed appeal before the CIT Tax (Appeals) as against the impugned assessment proceedings. As such, the appellant who filed writ petition under Article 226 and having exercised such remedy and faced dismissal order, filed alternate remedy, on the self same issues. The appellant can very well go into the matter in depth before the CIT (A) on the merits of reopening u/s 147. Therefore, no force in the contention of appellant that it is not a double claim. Assessee having furnished incomplete details and which has been comes to notice of the AO the Assessee has no case, therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present writ appeal. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issues considered in this judgment are: Whether the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified. Whether the appellant had claimed a double deduction of Rs. 6,54,75,440 for AY 2014-15. Whether the reopening of the assessment was barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISReopening of Assessment under Section 148The relevant legal framework involves Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deal with the reassessment of income that has escaped assessment. The Court examined whether the conditions for reopening the assessment were satisfied.The Court noted that the reopening was based on the alleged double deduction claimed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the reopening was beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the relevant AY, as stipulated in the proviso to Section 147, unless there was a failure to disclose material facts. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons for reopening the assessment, as there was a prima facie case of double deduction, which justified the reassessment.Double Deduction ClaimThe appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 6,54,75,440 twice for AY 2014-15. The Court examined the financial statements and submissions made by the appellant during the original assessment proceedings. It was found that the appellant had first deducted the amount from sales and then claimed it as part of another allowable deduction, constituting a double deduction.The Court concluded that the appellant failed to provide a detailed bifurcation of the other income of Rs. 7,31,66,598, and the evidence did not support the appellant's claim that the amount was offered as other income. Consequently, the Court upheld the addition of Rs. 6,54,75,440 to the appellant's taxable income.Barred by LimitationThe appellant contended that the reopening was barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 147, which prohibits reopening beyond four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts. The Court found that the appellant did not furnish full and true disclosure of material facts necessary for the assessment, which allowed the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction for reopening the assessment even beyond the four-year limit.Failure to Disclose Material FactsThe Court determined that the appellant did not disclose all necessary material facts during the original assessment proceedings. The appellant's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts justified the reopening of the assessment. The Court emphasized that it was the appellant's duty to provide all relevant materials for the assessment.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the reopening of the assessment was justified due to the appellant's failure to disclose material facts and the existence of a double deduction claim. The Court stated:'The appellant/assessee has made a wrong claim and has also not furnished full and true disclosure at the time of original assessment proceedings.'The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer was correct in reopening the assessment and that the writ court's decision to uphold the reopening was valid. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, as the appellant had not provided complete details, and the double deduction was evident.The appellant's reliance on precedents was insufficient to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer and the writ court. The Court dismissed the writ appeal, allowing the appellant to pursue the matter before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).