Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 285 - HC - Income TaxNotice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 – Income escapement – Sybsidy treated as capital expenses - Held that:- An assessment cannot be reopened beyond the ordinary period of limitation because a mistake therein is detected or realised or that something which ought to have come to the notice of the department went unnoticed - There is also no room for “change of opinion” – relying upon Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Eicher Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - when there was a specific observation that this particular subsidy was to be taken as a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt it was gross indiscipline on the part of the Income Tax Officer. Also in Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2005 (2) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA High Court] it has been held that if the AO had not questioned the entitlement of the assessee to deduction u/s 80-IB in the assessment years, it was their mistake - All information regarding the alleged manufacturing process of the assessee was before them - After the time limit for making assessment or reassessment had long expired, the Revenue cannot turn round, take recourse to an extraordinary provision which is section 147 and attempt to reopen concluded assessments - If such exercise is permitted that would be quite contrary to the intention of the Act – the subsidy was treated as a capital receipt in Section 263 proceedings for the AY 2003-2004 was within the knowledge of the department - Therefore, there was no ground for the Income Tax department to contend that income had escaped assessment and proceed to invoke the extraordinary provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Act – thus, the notice u/s 147/148 is to be set aside – Decided in favour of assessee.
|