Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1245 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - depreciation/additional depreciation and inventory written off - change of opinion - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that the Assessing Officer issued section 142 notice to the assessee raising specific queries on 20-07-2005. There is no issue between the parties that clause 7 and 17 therein forming pages 255 and 256 of the paper book asked the assessee to produce all necessary details pertaining to depreciation/additional depreciation and inventory written off amounting ₹ 2.48 crores respectively. This followed assessee’s explanation tendered on 25-08-2005 and 23-09-2005 on the very issues. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed regular assessment on 31-03-2006 not rejecting the same. We are of the opinion in this factual backdrop that it can be safely inferred that the Assessing Officer duly agreed with the assessee’s explanation. The Revenue’s contention is that he had not mentioned anything in the assessment order on these issues. This fails to impress us. We are of the opinion that it was beyond assessee’s control as to whether or not its relevant explanation formed part of discussion in assessment order. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer did not specific reject the corresponding explanation in the scrutiny assessment. We observe in this factual backdrop that he formed an opinion in assessee’s favour and reopened the said assessment subsequently without any fresh tangible material. We are of the view that the same amounts to mere change of opinion not permissible Whether Assessing Officer in the course of scrutiny assessment had examined the issue of section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance and not that of interest income arising from GSIL loan? - Held that:- Once the assessee could not have booked the income in absence of any interest stipulation in loan agreement even by following accrual principle, Assessing Officer’s corresponding reason of reopening does not satisfy the cause-effect relationship reiterated hereinabove. We conclude that the issue as to whether or not the Assessing Officer had examined this issue in scrutiny has been rendered academic. The Revenue’s further contention that the tribunal had already examined the very issue (supra) is not borne out from the records comprising of reopening reasons. We accept assessee’s arguments and quash the impugned reopening. This renders other grounds on merits in both the cross appeals to have been rendered infructuous. - Decided against revenue
|