2023 (1) TMI 608 - AT - Income Tax
Reopening of assessment u/s.147 - addition made on account of CENVAT credit and consequently reduction in claim of deduction u/s.80IA - whether reopening could be made to examine another facet of the same claim of deduction? - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no failure on the part of the assessee in making full and true disclosure of material facts in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings that are relevant for the purpose of framing the assessment.
There is absolutely no basis for the ld. AO to come to the conclusion that income of the assessee had escaped assessment by way of excess claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in the instant case. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the information sought for u/s. 133(6) of the Act constitute tangible material to the ld. AO which enabled him to form belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. As stated earlier, the said information was no new information provided by the assessee to the ld. AO as the assessee had only re-furnished the very same information that is already available with the ld. AO in the assessment record. Hence, it could be safely concluded that there is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld. AO having live link to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Hence, reopening of the assessment fails on this count itself.
Reopening could be made to examine another facet of the same claim of deduction - This was subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as rightly pointed by the ld. AR before us in the case of QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd.[2018 (3) TMI 1664 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein as settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim.
The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. Also confirmed by SC [2018 (11) TMI 1185 - SC ORDER]
As assessee had furnished all the relevant details in the return of income and also elaborated those details during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings itself. In fact, the ld. AO in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act had even resorted to disturb the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act by making additions thereon, which got ultimately deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and by this Tribunal. Hence, the entire gamut of the issue of claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was already subject matter of examination in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings and an opinion has already been framed by the ld.AO. The Revenue seeking to reopen the assessment in this scenario only tantamount to change of opinion, which is not permissible in law.
Even on merits, we find that the main grievance of the Revenue is that the assessee had not debited certain expenses in the eligible unit i.e. 80IA units and thereby had claimed excess deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in the return of income. We find that this aspect has been addressed elaborately by the ld.CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowances by placing reliance on various decisions of Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court and granted relief to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.