RAJ STATE MINES and MINERALS REG OFFICE vs. THE ASSIT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX JAIPUR

Order 13/12/2017

legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.14,04,582/- on account of amortization of the Act?

of the case and in law the ld. ITAT was justified in holding that the claim of Rs.5,49,980/- paid towards social welfare expenses was not purpose and not allowable u/s 37 of the Act.

147/148 were without jurisdiction.

legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.1,00,25,871/- on account of amortization of the Act?

of the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.1,20,47,954/- paid purpose and disallowed the claim u/s 37 of the Act.

of the case and in law the Ld. ITAT has not legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs. 25,62,746/- on account of amortization of cost paid towards the acquisition of wasting asset i.e. mining land/leasehold land u/s 37 of the Act? (iii) Whether under facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in disallowing the claim of expenditure of Rs.4,20,073/- incurred towards social welfare. (iv) Whether under facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld ITAT was justified in disallowing the expenses of Rs.6,64,150/- incurred towards mine development expenses.

(5 of 9) [ITA-302/2017]

purpose and not allowable u/s 37 of the Act.

of the case and in law the ld. ITAT has not legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.1,65,35,825/- on account of amortization of the Act.

of the case and in law ld. ITAT was justified in disallowing the claim of expenditure of Rs.2,77,218/- incurred towards social welfare.

of the case and in law ITAT was justified in disallowing the expenses of Rs.33,41,648/- incurred towards mine development expenses.

legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.1,00,99,102/- on account of amortization of the Act?

of the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.17,95,838/- paid purpose and not allowable u/s 37 of the Act?

of the case and law ITAT was justified in confirming an addition of Rs.35,51,084/- on account of unpaid land tax u/s 43B of the Act.

(6 of 9) [ITA-302/2017]

the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in not holding that reassessments proceedings u/s 147/148 were without jurisdiction.

legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.1,01,02,114/- on account of amortization of the Act?

of the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.17,56,444/- paid purpose and not allowable u/s 37 of the Act?

of the case and law ITAT was justified in confirming an addition of Rs.3,15,50,975/- on account of unpaid land tax u/s 43B of the Act.

legally erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.99,49,723/- on account of amortization of the Act?

of the case and in law Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.18,70,932/- paid purpose and not allowable u/s 37 of the Act?

(7 of 9) [ITA-302/2017]

High Court Full Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Usha International Ltd., [2012] 25 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi) (FB), wherein it has been observed:

“13. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid position that: (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change of opinion; (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and is decided in favour of the assessee. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of "change of opinion". (3) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make addition or reject the stand of the assessee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his

reasons.

“13. Revenue had the option, but did not take recourse to Section 263 of the Act, inspite of audit objection. Supervisory and revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is available, if an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. An (8 of 9) [ITA-302/2017]

erroneous order contrary to law that has caused prejudiced can be correct, when jurisdiction under Section 263 is invoked.”

conclusion and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, resort to Section 263 of the Act is available and should be resorted to. But initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion.” and judgment of Gujarat High Court in Praful Somabhai Patel (HUF) vs. Income Tax Officer, [2016] 73 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), wherein it has been observed as under:-

subjective satisfaction. Merely an audit report, in our opinion, would not authorize the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment even within the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, when the said material was already before him when the original assessment was made. Any such attempt on his part would be based on mere change of opinion. To reiterate when a claim was processed at length and after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment. Therefore, in our view, the Assessing Officer cannot change his opinion, which he has already accepted in his assessment order. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in reversing the finding of CIT (A). Accordingly, we answer the question posed for our consideration in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the reopening proceedings are valid, legal and within the jurisdiction of the Respondent. Even otherwise, the method of valuation is in order and since the valuations are made under two different Acts, they cannot be made basis for reopening of valuation. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed.