M/S STUMPP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/21146/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01012748201903 March 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD15 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice dated February 5, 2019, and the order dated April 8, 2019. On the first issue, regarding the allegation of failure to disclose material facts, the Court held that while the exact statutory words are not used, the opening statement in paragraph 5 of the reasons, asserting that discrepancies were detected during survey and scrutiny proceedings, sufficiently satisfies the requirement of an allegation of failure to disclose material facts truly and fully. Therefore, the petitioner could not succeed on this ground alone. However, on the second issue, concerning the change of opinion, the Court found that the petitioner had made disclosures regarding the transaction with M/s. SSS Realty and Co. and the revaluation reserve. The Assessing Officer had issued notices under Section 142(1) and asked pointed questions about this transaction, but ultimately made no additions concerning it while framing the assessment under Section 143(3). This indicated that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue. Therefore, the Court concluded that the proposed reassessment was based on a clear change of opinion, which is impermissible, and quashed the reopening proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Private Limited, filed its return for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and paid Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on December 29, 2016. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 148 on February 5, 2019, proposing to reopen the assessment for AY 2013-14. The petitioner objected to the reopening, but its objections were disposed of by the respondent's order dated April 8, 2019. The reasons for reopening included detection of suppressed taxable book profits from a survey, findings from scrutiny in a subsequent year (AY 2016-17) impacting the preceding year, and alleged failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the case with due diligence and essential aspects of taxation. The core issue involved the transfer of rights in land to M/s. SSS Realty and Co., in which the petitioner holds 99% shares, and the revaluation of this property.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and the order disposing of objections are without jurisdiction and bad in law, specifically concerning the alleged failure to disclose material facts truly and fully, thereby vitiating the reopening of assessment after four years. - Assessee's contention: There is no specific allegation of deliberate failure to truly and fully disclose material facts in the reasons provided for reopening. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after the petitioner made necessary disclosures, including in Form 3CD and in response to notices under Section 142(1). Therefore, the reopening is based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible. - Revenue's contention: The reassessment is justified due to a failure to disclose material facts truly and fully, as discrepancies were detected during survey proceedings under Section 133A and scrutiny proceedings for AY 2016-17, indicating the Assessing Officer's failure to examine crucial aspects of capital gains and MAT provisions for AY 2013-14. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment is based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, rendering it impermissible. - Assessee's contention: The Assessing Officer had issued notices under Section 142(1) and made detailed queries regarding the transaction with M/s. SSS Realty and Co. during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). Despite these detailed inquiries and disclosures, no additions were made concerning this transaction, indicating a deemed opinion. The subsequent reopening is therefore based on a change of opinion. - Revenue's contention: The details regarding the transaction were not fully available until the scrutiny and survey proceedings, hence the reopening is not based on a change of opinion but on the discovery of new information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 115JB,Section 143(3),Section 133A,Section 142(1),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21146 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S STUMPP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI M R SATISH, S/O SRI M R RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PLOT NO.4, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 2, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 05.02.2019 ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

THE ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A FOR THE A.Y.2013-14 AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION; QUASH THE ORDER OF DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B FOR THE A.Y.2013-14 AS BAD IN LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the notice dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the I.T. Act’) for the assessment year 2013-2014, and the respondent’s order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-B) disposing of the petitioner’s objections to the reasons furnished to justify reopening assessment.

2.

The petitioner has filed its returns for the assessment year 2013-2014 and has paid Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB of the I.T. Act. This is after appropriate assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 29.12.2016.

- 3 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

With the issuance of the notice dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-A), the petitioner has requested for reasons for reopening the assessment on 15.02.2019 and in response thereto, the respondent has furnished reasons on 19.02.2019 (Annexure-G). The petitioner’s objections dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure- H) to the reasons offered to justify reopening of assessment, is disposed of by the impugned order dated 08.04.2019.

3.

The summary of the reasons offered for reopening the assessment is mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, and it reads as hereunder:

“2.3 To summarize the reasons for reopening is based on the following aspects:

a) Detection of suppression of Taxable Book profits as a result of survey u/s 133A

b) Findings relating to a preceding year (A. Y. 2013-14) that surfaced when the scrutiny proceedings were undertaken in the subsequent year (A.Y. 2016-17) - Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT [247 ITR 818] (SC)

- 4 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

c) Failure on part of the Assessing Officer to examine the case with due diligence - Delhi HC in the case Consolidated Photo Invest Vs ACIT

d) Failure on part of the Assessing Officer to even touch the essential aspect of taxation Civil Appeal No 2732 of 2007 Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) Vs. M/s TechSpan India Private Ltd. & Anr.”

4.

The aforesaid are stated in the backdrop of the following. The transfer of rights in the immovable land in Sy.No.139/2 of Hosur Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru to M/s. SSS Realty and Co in which the petitioner holds 99% shares is not fully disclosed inasmuch as the petitioner has not mentioned in the Returns that the value of this property was revalued at Rs.21,57,75,680/- as a consequence of transfer of this property. The petitioner, who should have added the value of Rs.21,49,44,377/- for the computation of book profit as per Clause J to Explanation-1 of Section 115JB of the I.T. Act, has not declared capital gains for this transfer.

- 5 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

5.

The petitioner’s principal objections to the reasons assigned are two fold. Firstly, there is no deliberate failure to truly and fully disclose the transaction with M/s. SSS Realty and Co., and because the assessment is proposed to be opened after a lapse of four [4] years from the end of March 2014, there cannot be a proposal for reassessment unless there is a specific allegation of deliberate failure to fully and truly disclose material facts. Secondly, the reassessment is because of the “change in opinion”.

6.

Sri. S.Annamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene with the impugned order because there is no specific allegation of failure to disclose truly and fully material facts and unless there is such an allegation in the reasons to reopen assessment, the respondent cannot assume jurisdiction. In this regard he draws the attention of this Court to the reasons assigned, and draws support from the

- 6 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

decision of this Court in Mphasis Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others1.

7.

Sri. S.Annamalai next submits that the records indicate that all the necessary disclosures are made not just at the time of filing the returns with the necessary declaration in Form No.3CD, but also when notices were issued on two [2] occasions under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act. After these disclosures. The assessment is framed under Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act making certain additions for the purposes of Section 115JB of the I.T. Act, but without any addition for the transaction in favour of M/s. SSS Realty and Co. This demonstrates that the impugned notice is because of a change of opinion, and in that event, there cannot be reopening of a closed assessment. In support of this contention he proposes to rely upon a decision of this Court in LSI India Research and Development Pvt. Ltd Vs.

1 W.P.No.55355/2017 (T-IT) decided on 21.01.2020

- 7 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

Additional Commissioner for Income Tax Special Range-12.

8.

The first ground is considered, as emphasized by Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the respondent in the light of what is stated in paragraph No.5 of the reasons dated 19.02.2019. This paragraph reads as under:

“5. The above narrated discrepancies were detected during the course of scrutiny proceedings for AY 2016-17 and also during the survey proceedings u/s 133A carried out at assessee premises on 06.12.2018. With respect to AY 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has failed to examine the crucial aspect of taxation of Capital Gains on transfer and also the applicability of MAT provisions as per 115JB. The finding in the assessment of a subsequent year enforces correction in the preceding year when the issues are found identical.”

9.

It is indeed trite that if the assessment is to be reopened after four [4] years as contemplated

2 W.P.No.51208/2019 (T-IT) disposed of on 14.03.2022

- 8 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

under the first proviso to Section 147 of the I.T. Act [as it stood in the relevant time] there should be allegations of failure to truly and fully disclosed material facts unless the other conditions are satisfied3. As argued by Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, in the present case the reassessment is because there is a failure to disclose material fact truly and fully, and according to Sri. S.Annamalai, there is not even an allegation in this regard. In paragraph No.5 as aforesaid there is specific assertion that discrepancies were detected during the course of scrutiny proceedings for the assessment year 2016- 2017 and during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the I.T.Act carried out at assessee’s premises on 06.12.2018.

10.

This Court must ask the question whether the allegation that there is failure to disclose material

3 The other conditions would be the failure to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Section 142 (1) or Section 148 of the I.T.Act.

- 9 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

fact fully and truly should be stated in the exact words that are found in the statute, and then the answer is obvious. In law it is not mere repetition of the requirement in the exact words but a disclosure of the requirement as would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is obvious that the respondent alleges that the material facts are detected in scrutiny and survey proceedings under the relevant provisions of the I.T.Act. This Court must opine that the opening statement in paragraph No.5 as extracted would satisfy the requirement of an allegation, and hence the petitioner cannot succeed on the ground that there is no allegation. As such, the petitioner is not granted any indulgence on the first ground.

11.

It is seen from the records, as enclosed to this writ petition, that the petitioner’s transaction for the subject land with M/s. SSS Realty and Co. is declared in the returns filed and it would be useful to

- 10 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

refer to the different notes where there is a reference not just to the Revaluation Reserve as mentioned consequent to the transaction, but the transaction itself. The details are as follows:

Note–2: Mentions a revaluation reserve of a sum of Rs.21,49,44,377/-.

Note-10: Mentions the amount that is transferred as consideration for the transfer of the subject land to M/s. SSS Realty and Co., and

Note–11: Mentions the corresponding investment in M/s. SSS Realty and Co., (99.95% of its share)

The transaction is also reflected as Related Party Disclosures under the head Accounting Standard [AS- 18], and further, the value of the transaction in favour of M/s. SSS Realty and Co., is part of a separate Note on revaluation of land and investment in M/s. SSS Realty and Co.

- 11 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

12.

The petitioner is issued with notice for scrutiny on 23.10.2015 calling for certain documents and details, and it is seen from a copy of such notice that the petitioner is called upon to furnish:

i. The details of document relating to transfer of land at Koramangala towards investment in a partnership firm (the Auditor’s report).

ii. The details of investment made in M/s. SSS Realty and Co., (mentioned in this notice as Rs.21.58 Crores), and

iii. To explain the transactions relating to investment in M/s. SSS Realty and Co., along with relevant documents and financial statements of the Firm.

13.

The petitioner has responded to this notice on 29.02.2016 furnishing additional information such as a copy of the Partnership Deed, ledger extract of the details of the investment made in M/s. SSS Realty and Co., its financial statement, and

- 12 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

a note on creation of Revaluation Reserve (Rs.21.49 Cr) with relevant documents. Insofar as the query on Revaluation Reserve4, the petitioner has furnished a note appended as Annexure – 1 to its submission dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure-L). It is stated in this note that the petitioner has revalued the property at Rs.21,57,75,680/- on the basis of fair market value as certified by an independent valuer and the difference between the book value and the book value on the date of the revaluation Rs.21,49,44,337/-, is shown as Revaluation Reserve. A copy of the valuation report is also furnished.

14.

The Assessing Officer, in the light of these disclosures, while framing the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act has made certain addition for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act but without any other addition because of the subject transactions. In these

4 Query No.6 in the notice dated 23.10.2015

- 13 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

circumstances, the question insofar as the Revaluation Reserve, or the transfer in favour of M/s. SSS Realty and Co., would be whether there is a deemed opinion by the Assessing Officer on the question of Revaluation Reserve and transfer to M/s. SSS Realty and Co.

15.

If the Assessing Officer has repeatedly asked pointed questions and clarifications about the transaction in the light of the declarations made in the Returns, but without additions while framing assessment under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, there must be a presumption that the Assessing Officer has applied his/her mind and has framed an opinion. In this regard, a useful reference could be made to the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd.5 wherein it is exposited that in terms of Clause (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act

5 2002 (64) DRJ 109

- 14 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

1872, the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

16.

It flows from the above that if repeated and detailed queries are asked after the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act but without any addition, or disallowance, there is a deemed opinion and reassessment is proposed despite such opinion. It would be a case of change in opinion, and in that event reassessment would be impermissible. In the fact and circumstances of this case, this Court must opine that the respondent’s reasons to say that there is no change in the opinion because the details were not available until there was a scrutiny and survey proceedings, cannot be accepted and the proposed reassessment is based on clear change in opinion. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-A) and

- 15 -

WP No. 21146 of 2019

the order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-B) are quashed.

SD/- JUDGE RB

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →