ITP-3(1)(4) vs. M/s Everlon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 6965/Mum/2013; Date of order: 23rd May, 2016; A.Y.: 2006-07; Mum. ITAT] Section 147: Reassessment – Within four years – Regular assessment u/s 143(3) – Issue of one-time settlement with bank and consequential relief granted by the bank was discussed and deliberated by the AO – Reopening notice issued on same ground is bad in law

12. The Pr.
CIT-3 vs. M/s Everlon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. [Income tax Appeal No. 1039 of 2017] Date of order:
4^th November, 2019 (Bombay High
Court)

ITP-3(1)(4) vs.
M/s Everlon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 6965/Mum/2013; Date of order: 23^rd
May, 2016; A.Y.: 2006-07; Mum. ITAT]

Section 147:
Reassessment – Within four years – Regular assessment u/s 143(3) – Issue of
one-time settlement with bank and consequential relief granted by the bank was
discussed and deliberated by the AO – Reopening notice issued on same ground is
bad in law

The assessee is
engaged in the business of manufacture of polyester and texturised / twisted
yarn and management consultancy. The assessee filed its return of income on 29^th
November, 2006. The AO completed the assessment on 24^th November,
2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepting ‘Nil’ return of income as filed by the
assessee. Thereafter, on 28^th March, 2011, a notice was issued u/s
148 of the Act to the assessee, seeking to re-open the assessment. The reason
in support of the re-opening notice was in regards to cessation of liability
u/s 41 of the Act.

The assessee
objected to the re-opening notice on the ground that it was based on ‘change of
opinion’ and, therefore, without jurisdiction. However, this contention was not
accepted by the AO. This resulted in the assessment order dated 30^th
August, 2011 u/s 143(3) r/w/s 147 of the Act, adding the sum of Rs. 1.37 lakhs
to the income of the assessee by holding it to be a revenue receipt.

Aggrieved by
this order, the assessee company filed an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A)
recorded a finding of fact that during the course of regular scrutiny
proceedings u/s 143(3), the issue of the assessee’s one-time settlement with
the bank and consequential relief granted by the bank was discussed and
deliberated by the AO. In fact, queries were raised by the AO with regard to
the one-time settlement; the assessee, by its communication dated 11^th
November, 2008, responded with complete details of the one-time settlement with
its bankers, including the details of relief / waiver obtained. The CIT(A) held
the settlements to the extent of Rs. 2.06 crores as revenue receipt, as
reflected in the Profit and Loss Account, and the fact that the amount of Rs.
1.37 crores was transferred to the capital account was deliberated upon by the
AO before passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) held that
the re-opening notice was without jurisdiction as it was based on a mere change
of opinion.

Being aggrieved
by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The
Tribunal held that the issue of one-time settlement with the bank and the
treatment being given to the benefit received on account of settlement, was a
subject matter of consideration by the AO. It found on facts that during the
regular assessment proceedings, the issue of one-time settlement was inquired
into by the AO and the appellant had furnished all details in its letter dated
11^th November, 2008. It also records the fact that the impugned
notice was only on the basis of audit objection and the AO had not applied his
mind before issuing a re-opening notice and merely acted on the dictate of the
audit party. In the circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A)
that the re-opening notice is without jurisdiction.

Aggrieved by
the order of the ITAT, the Revenue filed an Appeal to the High Court. The
Revenue submitted that the issue of one-time settlement found no mention in the
assessment order passed u/s 143(3). Thus, no opinion was formed by the AO while
passing the regular assessment order. Therefore, there was no bar on him on
issuing the re-opening notice. It was, thus, submitted that the issue requires
consideration and the appeal be admitted.

The Court
observed that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, queries were raised
and the petitioner filed a detailed response on 11^th November, 2008
giving complete details to the AO of the one-time settlement and the manner in
which it was treated. This finding of fact was not shown to be perverse in any
manner. The re-opening notice is not based on any fresh tangible material but
proceeds on the material already on record with the AO and also considered before
passing the order u/s 143(3). The submission
of Revenue that consideration of an issue by the AO must be reflected in the
assessment order, is in the face of the decision of the Court in GKN
Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. Ms Ramapriya Raghavan 371 ITR 225 which approved
the view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals
Ltd., 305 ITR 607, to the effect that an assessment order cannot deal
with all queries which the AO had raised during the assessment proceedings. The
AO restricts himself only to dealing with those issues where he does not agree
with the assessee’s submission and gives reasons for it. Otherwise, it would be
impossible to complete all the assessments within the time limit available.

Thus, the Court held that once a query is raised during assessment
proceedings and the assessee has responded to the query to the satisfaction of
the AO, then there has been due consideration of the same. Therefore, issuing
of the re-opening notice on the same facts which were considered earlier,
clearly amounts to a change of opinion and is, thus, without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Revenue appeal is dismissed.