M/S. ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6001/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2020AY 2005-0612 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on material already on record and sought to correct an error in the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2005-06 was reopened after four years based on an audit objection regarding a deduction claimed for loss on sale of fixed assets. The assessee had agreed to this addition during the original assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when based on existing records and not new tangible material, and whether the assessee had failed to disclose material facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(15)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI O.P. KANT

Hearing: 15.01.2020Pronounced: 21.01.2020

Date of Hearing : 15.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi, Dated 01.08.2014, for the A.Y. 2005-2006, challenging the 2 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that return for Assessment Year 2005-06 was filed by the assessee on 28.10.2005 declaring loss of Rs.41.72 crores. Thereafter, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2008 wherein the loss was assessed at Rs.40.29 crores. Later on, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2012 requiring the assessee to file its return of income for the assessment year under appeal. In response to the notice, the assessee stated that the original return filed may be treated as return having been filed in compliance to notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. raised the issue of loss of sale on fixed assets. The assessee stated before the A.O. that there is error and agreed for addition. The A.O, therefore, made addition of Rs.2,45,35,280/- on account of loss on sale of fixed assets.

2.1. The A.O. further considered the issue of claim of foreign exchange loss of Rs.2,81,48,000/- and after

3 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. discussion made the similar addition. Income from this computed at loss of Rs.(-)35.02 crores vide re-assessment order under section 147/143(3) Dated 15.03.2013.

3.

The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that audit party has pointed- out factual mistake with regard to addition on account of sale of fixed assets amounting to Rs.2,45,35,280/-. Assessee has agreed for the addition, therefore, this addition was maintained and reopening of the assessment was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A), however, as regards addition of Rs.2,81,48,000/- on account of foreign exchange loss deleted the addition. Appeal of assessee was partly allowed.

4.

The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the reopening of the assessment only. Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed copy of the reasons for reopening of the assessment at page-9 of the PB. He has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee on Point No.2 and that there is no fresh tangible material brought on record for reopening of the assessment. The 4 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. reasons are recorded for reopening of the assessment based on material already on record. He has submitted that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and correctly all material facts, therefore, proviso to Section 147 will apply. The A.O. has not pointed-out as to where is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and correctly all material facts. In support of the contention, he has relied upon following decisions :

1.

Asian Paints Ltd., vs., DCIT [2009] 348 ITR 452 (Bom.) 2. Indu Lata Rangwala vs., DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT vs., Central Warehousing Corporation [2015] 371 3. ITR 81 (Del.) Pala Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd., vs., State of 4. Kerala [1999] 236 ITR 604 (Kerala) DCIT vs., Pala Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd., 5. [2000] 243 ITR 499 (Kerala) Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 6. 332 (Bom.)

4.1. He has further submitted that A.O. was empowered by proviso under section 154 of the I.T. Act to correct mistake on record instead of initiating the re-

5 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. assessment proceedings. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., vs., DCIT [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bom.) in which it was held that “power to rectify an Order of assessment under section 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in order of assessment. The A.O. must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment.”

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that reopening have been done on the basis of audit report pointing-out factual mistake in the assessment, which assessee has ultimately agreed before A.O. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is justified. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions :

1. New Delhi Television Ltd., vs., DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 136 (Del.) (HC) 2. CIT vs., P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd., [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) 3. CIT vs., Kiranbhai Jamnadas Shety HUF [2014] 221 Taxman 19 (Gujarat). 4. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., vs., CIT [2012] 346 ITR 228 (Guj.).

6 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is well settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The assessee has filed copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment at page-9 of the PB which is also reproduced in the assessment order and the same reads as under :

“Reasons recorded u/s.148(2) for issue of Notice u/s.148(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Name of the Assessee : M/s. Alcatel South Asia Ltd., 1st Floor, 5 Sikandra Road, New Delhi. PAN AACCA8667 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Previous Year : 2004-05.

The scrutiny assessment of M/s Alcatel South Asia Ltd for the assessment year 2005-06 was 7 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. completed in December,2008 at a Loss of Rs 40,29,18,340/- _On perusal of record it was observed that as per P&L account, the assessee had claimed and was allowed the following deductions. i) Deduction of Rs 1,22,67,640/- on account of loss on sale of fixed assets This item being capital in nature was required to be added back to the income of the assessee However, instead of adding back to the business income of the assessee, this amount was reduced from the total income in the computation sheet Hence, the omission resulted in underassessment of income by Rs.2,45,35,280/-. ii) Deduction of Rs 2,81,48,000/- on account of foreign exchange loss As per notes to the financial statement monetary foreign currency assets and liabilities are translated into rupees at the rates of exchange prevailing on the balance sheet date As these losses ore not based on actual remittances

8 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. but merely restatement of assets and liabilities were required to be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.

Since the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore an income of Rs.5,26,83,280/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2005-06.

In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that an income of Rs.5,26,83,280/- has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2005-2006.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →