PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL-1) vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/426/2019HC DelhiDLHC01020517201902 August 2019Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that for AY 2004-2005, the ITAT was correct in not interfering with the CIT(A)'s order. The re-opening under Section 147 was based on the observation of Revenue audit without tangible material, and the Revenue's failure to challenge the CIT(A)'s annulment of the re-assessment proceedings meant there was no basis to proceed on merits. The Court found no substantial question of law arising on this issue. Regarding the computation of income under Section 44 of the Act, the Court affirmed that it is not in dispute that the assessee carried on life insurance business. Section 44 read with the First Schedule exclusively deals with the computation of profits and gains from life insurance business and has overriding effect. Therefore, the assessee was justified in filing a revised computation under Section 44 and raising it as an additional ground before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A)'s direction to compute income accordingly was justified. The Court found no error in the ITAT's decision on this issue and no substantial question of law. Concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Court upheld the ITAT's decision, which followed the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, holding that a penalty notice must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) is invoked. The Court found no error and no substantial question of law on this issue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed four appeals against common orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2010-2011, and 2008-2009. The appeals concerned the assessee, M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. For AY 2004-2005, the assessment was re-opened under Section 147. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,10,65,809/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] annulled the re-opening and deleted the addition. For AY 2005-2006, the AO made additions and disallowances. The assessee later filed a revised computation under Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which was accepted by the CIT(A). During this computation, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,62,04,000/- as 'amortization charges of investment'. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's plea to compute income under Section 44. Similar issues arose for AY 2006-2007 and 2010-2011. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s orders in all these matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A)'s order accepting the assessee's revised computation of income in terms of Section 44 read with the First Schedule to the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeals concerning AY 2004-2005, particularly regarding the re-opening of assessment under Section 147, when the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s annulment of the re-assessment proceedings? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the AO's notice not specifying the limb of the section under which proceedings were initiated? Assessee's Contentions: - For AY 2004-2005, the re-opening under Section 147 was impermissible as it was based on a 'change of opinion' without tangible material, and the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s annulment of the re-assessment. - The income from life insurance business must be computed under Section 44 of the Act, which has overriding effect, and it was permissible to file a revised computation or raise it as an additional ground before the CIT(A). - Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was wrongly imposed as the notice was vague. Revenue's Contentions: - The ITAT adopted a technical view by precluding the Revenue from urging the merits of the issue for AY 2004-2005 solely because the order annulling re-assessment was not challenged. - The ITAT erred in allowing the computation of income under Section 44 and at the stage of appeal before the CIT(A) for certain AYs. - The ITAT erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 28,Section 43B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-1,7, 8 &9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 475/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Appellant Through Mr. Sagar Suri, Standing counsel and Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates versus M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD Respondent Through Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate + ITA 426/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL-1) Appellant Through Mr. Sagar Suri, Standing counsel and Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates versus M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD Respondent Through Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate + ITA 427/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through Mr. Sagar Suri, Standing counsel and Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates versus M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD Respondent Through Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate + ITA 429/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL-1) Appellant Through Mr. Sagar Suri, Standing counsel and ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page I of 8 Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:15.10.2024 16:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates versus M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD Respondent Through Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER % 02.08.2019 CM Appl. No. I9863/20I9 (Exemption) in ITA No. 426/2019 CM AppI. No. 19865/2019 (Exemption! in ITA No. 427/2019 r CM Appl. No. 19869/2019 (Exemption) in ITA No. 429/2019 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM Appl. No. 19862/2019 (delay) in ITA No. 426/2019 CM Appl. No. 19864/2019 (delay) in ITA No. 427/2019 CM Appl. No. 19868/2019 (delay) in ITA No. 429/2019 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. ITA Nos. 475/2019. 426/2019, 427/2019 and 429/2019 3. These are four appeals by the Revenue against a common impugned order ~ dated 3L' October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT'). 4. ITA No. 475/2019 is directed against the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 6243/Del/2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-2006; ITA No. 426/2019 is directed against an order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1347/Del/20I3 for AY 2008-2009, ITA No. 427/2019 is directed against an order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 6246/Del/20I3 for AY 2010-2011 and ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 2 of 8

ITA No. 429/2019 is directed against an order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 3509/Del/2013 for AY 2004-2005 respectively. 5. One common issue sought to be urged by the Revenue in all these appeals is whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['GIT (A)'] accepting the Respondent/Assessee's revised computation of income in terms of Section 44 read with First Schedule to the Act? There are certain other incidental questions urged which will be discussed hereafter. 6. The facts as far as AY 2004-2005 is concerned, are that the Respondent, which is carrying on life insurance business, filed its return of income which was picked up for scrutiny. Initially the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 30'^ November, 2006. Subsequently, after the expiry of four years thereafter, a notice dated th 28 March, 2012 was issued under Section 148 of the Act for initiating re assessment proceedings. 7. In response to the notice under Section 147, the Respondent filed a return of income, this time computing the income in terms of Section 44 of the Act. However, the AO in the re-assessment order added the difference between the interest as per the balance sheet (which included interest paid at the time of purchase of securities) and the interest as per the Profit and Loss Account to the income of the Respondent whereas the original assessment was computed at a taxable income of Rs.2,89,55,200/-, the re-assessment, after ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 3 of 8

making an addition of Rs.2,10,65,809/- led to the computation of a total income ofRs. 5,00,21,010/-. 8. In the appeal before the CIT (A), the re-opening of the assessment by the AO was annulled. On merits also, the CIT (A) held in favour of the Respondent observing that it had followed Accounting Standard 13 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) with pre- acquisition interest paid and post acquisition interest income. The addition of Rs.2,10,65,809/- made by the AO was deleted. 9. The facts relevant to AY 2005-2006 are that the Respondent filed its return of income on 24"^ December, 2007 declaring a loss of Rs.9,67,15,2I8/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued by the AO to the Respondent. After making some additions and disallowances under Sections 28 and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act'), the AO computed the income under the head 'Business' at an assessed loss of Rs.5,48,20,431/-. 10. Subsequently, the AO claimed to have noted that the Respondent had claimed excessive deductions/allowances. In its appeal against this assessment order before the CIT (A), the Respondent raised an additional ground that its income from the insurance business had to be computed in terms of Section 44 of the Act which was applicable exclusively to income derived from such insurance business. Accordingly, it also furnished a revised computation of loss at Rs.7,47,31,918/-. This was accepted by the ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 4 of 8

CIT (A) and a direction was issued to the AO to compute the income accordingly. 11. During this second computation, the AO took note of the fact that the Respondent, which had got the license to commence business on 6^*^ February, 2004, had commenced its insurance business activity on 30'*^ October, 2004. The AO held that a sum of Rs.2,62,04,000/- had been claimed by the Respondent as 'amortization charges of investment'. This was held to be capital expenditure and therefore was disallowed and added to the Respondent's total income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. This was done by an order dated 24"^ December, 2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 12. For the second time around, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CIT (A) where one of the main grounds taken was that the AO was not justified in refusing to compute the total income of the Respondent in terms of Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule. The CIT (A) by the order dated lO"^ June, 2014 accepted this plea and deleted the disallowances. 13. The facts for AY 2006-2007 were identical to AY 2005-2006 in so far as the Respondent had initially filed return of income as per Sections 28 to 43 of the Act but later filed revised computation under Section 44 of the Act before the CIT (A). Likewise, for AY 2010-2011 also, where the CIT (A) directed the AO to determine income in terms of Section 44 of the Act. ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 5 of 8

r ■' 14. The Revenue filed appeals for the above AYs before the ITAT. One appeal of the Respondent pertaining to AY 2007-2008 was dismissed by the CIT (A) who upheld the imposition of penalty upon the Assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Against this, the Respondent filed an appeal before the ITAT. 15. The ITAT has in the impugned order noted that for AY 2004-2005 there was no material in possession of the AO other than the observation of the Revenue audit to proceed against the Assessee under Section 147 of the Act. The CIT (A) noted that the case fell squarely within the realm of 'change of opinion' which was impermissible as a basis for re-opening of assessments after a lapse of four years. The CIT (A) expressly annulled the re-assessment proceedings. The ITAT noted that this was not challenged by the Revenue. It only challenged the deletion of the addition on merits. In the absence of any challenge to the quashing of the re-assessment proceedings by the Revenue, the ITAT found no ground to interfere. 16. Learned counsel for the Revenue sought to contend that the ITAT adopted the technical view in precluding the Revenue from urging the merits of the issue only because it had not challenged the order of the CIT (A) annulling the re-assessment proceedings. In the considered view of the Court, this is not a mere 'technical approach'. The fact of the matter is that there was no basis for the re-opening of the assessment except the presumptive observation of the Revenue audit which itself was not based on any tangible material. ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 6 of 8

r 17. Consequently, as far as AY 2004-2005 in is concemed, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the ITAT and no substantial question of law arises. 18. As far as the other appeals are concemed, the central issue is whether the income of the Respondent ought to have been permitted to be computed under Section 44 of the Act? Further, for some AYs, whether it could have been permitted at the stage of the appeal before the CIT (A)? 19. As rightly observed by the ITAT, it is not in dispute that the Respondent carried on the business of life insurance. It is obliged to maintain its books of accounts and prepare its financial statements under the Insurance Act, 1938. Section 44 of the Act read with First Schedule thereof deals exclusively with the computation of Profit and Gains from life insurance business. These provisions, which begin with non-obstante clauses, override other provisions of the Act. There was no option but to compute income for insurance business in terms thereof. Therefore, the Respondent was justified in filing the revised computation under Section 44 of the Act and claiming this as an additional ground before the CIT (A). In the circumstances, the direction given by the CIT (A) to the AO to compute income in terms of Section 44 of the Act was justified. 20. The Court is unable to find any error having been committed in the ITAT in this regard. No substantial question of law arises on this issue as well. ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 7 of 8

21.

The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Kamataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Kamataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax V. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5^*^ August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. AUGUST 02, 2019 mw TALWANT SINGH, J. ITA 475/2019 & other connected matters Page 8 of 8

More judgments on Section 44

All 223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →