2007 (7) TMI 245 - HC - Income Tax

In view of SC decision in another case AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 and held that assessee is not entitled to deductions u/s 80HH 80HHA & 80I - Tribunal was right in law in holding that AO has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and seek to adjudicate the issue which had already been adjudicated by the appellate authority Tribunal had rightly annulled the reassessment - reopening of the assessment was bad in law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening assessments under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments after the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has reached finality.
3. Implications of the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. on the reopening of assessments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reopening Assessments Under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act:
The core issue was whether the reopening of assessments by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 147/148 was lawful. The Tribunal held that the reopening was "bad in law" because the original assessment orders had been finalized and the AO had already given effect to the order of the C.I.T.(A). The Tribunal emphasized that even if the C.I.T.(A)'s order was erroneous in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd., it had not been set aside by any legal process.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to Reopen Assessments After the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Has Reached Finality:
The Tribunal and the High Court both concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessments since the C.I.T.(A)'s order had reached finality. The Tribunal stated, "The Assessing Officer cannot sit over judgment of the Appellate Order. The only option open to him is to prefer an appeal before the higher forum." The High Court supported this view, noting that the AO is not entitled to circumvent the earlier order passed by the C.I.T.(A) which had become final.

3. Implications of the Supreme Court Judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. on the Reopening of Assessments:
While the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. held that the assessee was not entitled to deductions under Sections 80HH, 80HHA, and 80-I, this did not automatically invalidate the final order of the C.I.T.(A). The High Court cited previous judgments, including Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan Vs. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh, to reinforce that a final order remains binding unless set aside by a lawful process. The High Court concluded that the AO could not reopen the assessments based on the Supreme Court judgment without first having the C.I.T.(A)'s order set aside.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the reopening of the assessments was unlawful. The Court reiterated that the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments as the C.I.T.(A)'s order had reached finality and had not been overturned by any higher authority. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the tax cases were dismissed.