Reopening U/s. 147 on mere Audit Opinion is not valid

PrintPDF

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2012

ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd.

versus

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

2. The Union of India

DATE : 20th July, 2012.

The power to reopen a completed assessment under Section 147 of the Act has been bestowed on the Assessing Officer, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. However, this belief that income has escaped assessment has to be the reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself and cannot be an opinion and/or belief of some other authority. In fact, the Supreme Court in the matter of India Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, reported in 119 ITR page 996 has held that whether an assessment has escaped assessment or not must be determined by the Assessing Officer himself. The Assessing Officer cannot blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment. In the present facts, it would be noticed that the reasons for which the assessment for the assessment year 2006­2007 is sought to be reopened by communication dated 12.10.2011 are identical to the objection of the audit authority dated 29.12.2009. The reasons do not rely upon any tangible material in the audit report but merely upon an opinion and the existing material already on record. This itself indicates that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer before he issued the impugned notice. On this ground alone, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer can be faulted.

in the present facts one would have to examine the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the self same facts were not only before the Assessing Officer but he had also viewed the very issues on which the assessment is sought to be reopened. So far as, the issue in respect of provisions claimed as deduction for arriving at taxable profit aggregating to Rs.52.87 crores is concerned, the same was not only dislcosed in the notes to account filed with the return of Income but also in response to specific queries raised during the assessment proceeding. It was reiterated at the hearing that on the aforesaid account of provision, the tax had already been paid in the earlier years and the amounts were merely written back in this year to the extent they were in excess of the provisions required. So far as, failure to deduct TDS on advertisement and sales promotion are concerned leading to disallowance of the entire amount of Rs.22.48 crores under Section 40(a)(ia) the same was also subject to scrutiny by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the clause 17(f) of the tax audit report submitted alongwith return of income clearly brings out the fact that where tax has not been deducted, then the entire amount of payment has been offered for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). In fact, by letters dated 10.11.2008 and 26.12.2008 in response to specific queries of the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings the petitioner had pointed out alongwith details the expenses in respect of which the tax had not been deducted and which were offered to tax. So far as, the reason to reopen the assessment on the ground that the petitioner had declared short term capital gains of Rs.3.63 crores in respect of income earned out of investments had to be taxed/classified as business Income is concerned, it is not disputed before us that the treatment given was consistent with the earlier year practice and accepted by the Respondent. Further, it is not disputed before us that the short term capital gains have been assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income, the tax effect would be the same. Consequently, there could be no reasonable basis to have a belief that there is any escapement of Income.

Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and the impugned order dealing with the objection of the Petitioner is non speaking order in as much as it does not deal with any of the objections raised by the Petitioner in its objections.