Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16, which was initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on two audit objections: alleged excess depreciation claimed due to capital subsidy and undervaluation of closing stock of hulled sesame seeds. The AO had reopened the assessment citing escapement of income on these grounds.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO acted solely on audit objections without independent application of mind or forming his own belief regarding income escapement. For the depreciation issue, the capital subsidy was not received in the relevant year, and the audit objection was internally marked 'not accepted' by the AO. For the closing stock issue, the audit party exceeded its jurisdiction by applying its own formula, and the reopening was based on a mere opinion, not new tangible information. Consequently, the reopening and the assessment framed u/s 147 were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, based solely on audit objections without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, is legally valid and sustainable.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
Year : 2015-16 Rajkamal Agro Industries The ITO बनाम/ Deesa Palanpur Highway Ward-I v/s. At Rasna, Deesa – 385 535 Palanpur 385 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAIFR 7263 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 04/09/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016.
The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act for which reasons were recorded solely on the basis of audit objection. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on invalid, insufficient and vague reasons Rajkamal Agro Industries vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 2 recorded for re-opening without independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding an addition of Rs. 30,31,590/- made by Ld. AO being alleged under valuation of closing stock.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal issue regarding the validity of reopening of the assessment. He, in this respect, has brought my attention to Page No.58 of the paper-book, which is a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The reopening of the assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer (AO), in this case, on two issues. Firstly, that the assessee had received capital subsidy on investment, whereas the assessee has not reduced the said amount of subsidy from the cost of the machinery purchased and, therefore, the assessee had claimed excess depreciation on the capital assets. Secondly, the AO has analyzed the information on record and found that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of certain products from sesame seeds. He noticed that the assessee during the year had purchased 92445.79 quintals of sesame seeds, which were totally consumed for manufacturing of finished goods. However, the finished products being ‘hulled sesame seeds’ were shown at 61367.15 quintals and ‘hulled rejection’ at 5435.58 quintals, with claim of shortage at 25643.06 quintals. The AO applied some formula and observed that the assessee had not properly disclosed the value of the closing stock. He worked out the value of the closing stock of hulled sesame seeds/finished products at Rs.1,19,39,599/- against the value shown by the assessee in the books of accounts at Rs.89,08,009/-. He, therefore, observed that the assessee undervalued the closing stock. He accordingly observed that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment. Rajkamal Agro Industries vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 3.1. So far as the escapement of income on claim of excess depreciation is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to Page No.49 of the paper-book to show that the aforesaid issue of excess claim of depreciation has not been examined by the AO himself, rather the AO has acted blindly on the basis of audit objections made by the audit party. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the aforesaid audit objection was otherwise not tenable as the assessee did not receive any subsidy in the year under consideration. That the assessee had received the subsidy in Assessment Year 2009-10 and the amount of subsidy was, accordingly, reduced from the costs of assets. He has further shown that even in Column 4 of the Audit Memo itself, it has been written by the AO “Objection Not Accepted”. He has, thus, submitted that even the AO was not of the belief that the income of the assessee on this issue has escaped assessment as the said objection was not accepted by the AO. However, the AO subsequently reopened the assessment mentioning verbatim the same objection as his reasons for reopening of the assessment. The Ld. AR has further submitted that even during the reopened assessment proceedings, the AO has not made any addition on this issue.
3.2. So far as the second issue of undervaluation of the closing stock is concerned, the Ld. AR has invited my attention to Page No.54 of the paper- book, which is copy of the Audit Memo/Audit Objection, wherein, identical observations have been made by the audit party regarding undervaluation of the closing stock of the assessee which has been reproduced verbatim by the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The Ld. AR submitted that reopening of the assessment, on this issue, has also been made by the AO without application of mind and merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, acting blindly on the objections of the audit party. The Ld. Rajkamal Agro Industries vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 4 Counsel has relied upon various case-laws to submit that reopening of the assessment cannot be made merely on the basis of audit objection, without application of mind, by the AO and without forming an independent belief regarding the escapement of income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has fairly admitted that no addition has been made by the AO in respect of the issue relating to excess claim of depreciation. She has also fairly admitted that the said capital subsidy was not received by the assessee in the year under consideration. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment on this issue by the AO without application of mind and even without consulting the assessment record, was bad in law.
5. So far as the issue of undervaluation of closing stock of finished goods/hulled sesame seeds is concerned, I note that the audit party has exceeded its jurisdiction in going into various details and thereby calculating by applying its own formula/method to value the closing stock of ‘hulled sesame seeds’. The AO, even without consulting the assessment records, reopened the assessment making observations of the audit party in the reasons recorded. This issue of valuation of the closing stock of hulled sesame seeds could have been examined by the AO, after going through the entire assessment records during the assessment carried out u/s.143(3) of the Act. Further, this was not an issue from which the AO could have formed the belief of escapement of income on the basis of some external information received by him from audit party or some other source. Moreover, the working has been made by the audit party by applying its own formula. It is not a case, where a belief has been formed by the AO of escapement of income on the basis of some tangible information coming into his knowledge. Rajkamal Agro Industries vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 5 It is a case of re-appreciation of the records which are already there before the AO and not any new fact or information coming to the knowledge of the AO of escapement of income, rather, in this case, the audit party has gone deep and even proceeded to calculate the valuation of the closing stock by applying some formula. It is mere a case of opinion of audit party, upon which the AO has acted blindly and without application of mind for reopening of the assessment. Under the circumstances, the reopening of the assessment, in this case, is held as bad in law and the consequent assessment framed u/s.147 of the Act is not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.