Invalidation of notice of reopening of assessment

Last updated: 18 February 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruling addresses the validity of reopening a tax assessment beyond four years after the original assessment was completed. The tribunal considered whether the reopening was justified based on previously available information or if new material had emerged. It also touched upon issues related to disclosure of facts, hire charges, and the completeness of tax forms.

Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
The present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 25/11/2019 passed by Ld.CIT(A), Bangalore-10 for assessment year 2009-10 on following grounds of appeal:

Citation :
ITA No.78/Bang/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.78/Bang/2020
Assessment Year : 2009-10

Shri G Mallikarjuna Naidu,
No.2455, 9th Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
PAN – ADHPM 4253 H
APPELLANT

Vs.

The Income-tax Officer,
Ward-7(2)(4),
Bengaluru.
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri V Sridhar, C.A
Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT
(DR)

Date of Hearing : 18-01-2021
Date of Pronouncement : 01-02-2021

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 25/11/2019 passed by Ld.CIT(A), Bangalore-10 for assessment year 2009-10 on following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order of CIT-A is opposed to Law and facts of the case.

2. The CIT-A erred in holding that reopening is valid which is reopened beyond 4 years after completion of original assessment U/s 143(3),without recording in the reasons for reopening that there was failure onthe part of the appellant to disclose truly fully all materials facts necessary for assessment is not correct.

3. The order of CIT-A holding that reopening is valid based on the same facts which already available in record and no new material has come in possession after completion of assessment u/s 143(3).

4. The order of CIT-A in not following CBDT instructions No-1425, dt.i6.i.3.98 with respect to hire charges which includes interest payable does not come under purview of interest u/s 2(28A) of the I.T. Act for consequent disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia).

5. The order of CIT-A in holding that form 26A is not complete with respect to Rule 31ACB of the I.T. Rules is not correct since, the appellant requested time to file the requisite form in the absence of allotment of TAN.

6. The CIT-A whose power is co-terminus with that of the assessing officer could have exercised the power u/s 131 or u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act toascertain the accounting of income and payment of interest by M/s. GE Capital 8 Reliance Capital and granted benefit of provision of section 40(a)(1a) after holding that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

A tax assessment reopened beyond 4 years after the original assessment may be invalid if the reasons for reopening do not clearly state a failure by the appellant to disclose all necessary material facts.

Reopening an assessment based solely on facts that were already available during the original assessment, without any new material coming to light, may not be considered valid.

The ruling mentions CBDT Instruction No. 1425, dated 16.1.1998, concerning hire charges that include interest payable. It suggests these might not fall under the definition of interest for Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, potentially affecting disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia).

If Form 26A is incomplete because the appellant requested time to file it due to the absence of a TAN allotment, this could be a factor in the assessment proceedings.

Yes, the CIT(A), whose powers are co-terminus with the assessing officer, could have potentially used powers under Section 131 or Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to ascertain accounting and payment details.