|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0527 (Del-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Absence of tangible material which formed the basis of belief-the question as to how did AO come to peruse assessment records when assessment was already completed necessarily constituted a 'review', which AO was not permitted to do under the Act. Accordingly, reassessment was invalid.
Reassessmemt - Reason to believe - Change of opinion by AO on same set of facts -
AO noticed that assessee-company had translated accrued interest on deferred IRAQI dues and provision for interest to sub-contractors at exchange rate on last settlement date from Government of India and not at the rate prevalent as on 31-3-2009 (i.e. last date of the relevant financial year). Accordingly, AO recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 and in the reassessment proceedings after restating interest liability keeping in view the dollar exchange rate on the last date of balance-sheet for the year under consideration, made addition. Assessee pleaded change of opinion on AO's part. Held: The issue regarding non-restatement of interest in foreign currency and not including it in its income exigible to income-tax by assesseee was already considered and accepted in the original assessment under section 143(3). Also, absence of tangible material which formed the basis of belief-the question as to how did AO come to peruse assessment records when assessment was already completed necessarily constituted a 'review', which AO was not permitted to do under the Act. Accordingly, reassessment was invalid.
Supported by:Pr. CIT v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 360 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6808 (SC), Jalaram Enterprises P ltd v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 404 (Bom) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2357 (Bom-HC), Tulsi Developers v. Dy. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 530 (Guj) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0107 (Guj-HC), HK Buikscon Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 339 ITR 535 (Guj) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1804 (Guj-HC),Asstt. CIT v. Nityanand Infrastructre Ltd. (ITA No. 2255/Mum/2017), Asstt. CIT v. Seema Dilip Vora (ITA No. 582/Mum/2017, --Replika Press Private Limited & Anr v. Dy. CIT (2013) 92 DTR 153 (del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2535 (Del-HC), -Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT (2014) 367ITR 165 (Del) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3357 (Del-HC), Pr. CIT v. Tupperware India private limited (2016) 284 CTR 68(del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3491 (Del-HC), Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 412 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3936 (Del-HC), Rasalika Trading and Investemnt Co. (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 365 ITR 447(Del) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1468 (Del-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT