RANI PRINTERS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 757/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 August 2017AY 2006-075 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 since four years had expired from the end of the relevant assessment year and the original assessment was under Section 143(3), reassessment under Section 148 could not be reopened without negligence on the part of the assessee. As no such negligence was alleged by the revenue, the reassessment was barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2006-07 was accepted under Section 143(3). Later, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148, believing the transaction was a slump sale and income had escaped assessment. The assessee argued that reassessment was time-barred as four years had passed and there was no negligence.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the assessment year, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), are valid without proving assessee's negligence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 50B,Section 50

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT
Hearing: 05.07.2017Pronounced: 03.08.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai, dated 30.12.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The first issue arises for consideration is reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2006-07 on 21.03.2007 admitting a total income of `98,98,641/-.

The return was selected for scrutiny and order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2008 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer examined the record once again and found that the Memorandum of Undertaking dated 05.10.2005, whereby the assessee-company was taken over by M/s Malabar Publications, amounts to transfer of knowhow, trademark, commercial rights, etc. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer found that it is only a slump sale, therefore, the profit has to be assessed under Section 50B of the Act for short term capital gain. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer found that there was escapement of income. According to the Ld. counsel, four year period expired from the end of the relevant assessment year and the assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, it is not a case that there was negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing the relevant material for assessment. The Assessing Officer, on perusal of records already filed by the assessee, found that there was escapement of income. In the absence of any allegation that the assessee failed to file the necessary material before the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessment cannot be reopened after expiry of four years in view of proviso to Section 147 of the Act.

4.

On the contrary, Shri S. Nataraja, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed the sale to M/s Malabar Publications as slump sale under Section 50B of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer on examination of records, found that the transaction cannot be considered as slump sale. At the best, according to the Ld. D.R., it can be considered as sale of trademark and other commercial rights under Section 50 of the Act, therefore, the capital gain has to be assessed since the return was accepted without examining. Only now the Assessing Officer found that there was escapement of income.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. We have carefully gone through the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. It is not in dispute that four years period expired from the end of the relevant assessment year under consideration. The assessment was also completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, unless there is negligence on the part of the assessee in producing necessary material before the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment. In this case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has failed to file necessary material for completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. In fact, the Assessing Officer re- examined the material already available on record and found that the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that reopening of assessment is barred by limitation, therefore, the consequential order cannot stand in the eye of law. The assessment order passed under Section 148 of the Act is quashed.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →