By K. B. Bhujle | Advocate
New Page 1
Unreported
20 Reassessment : S. 147, S. 148 and S. 154 of Income-tax
Act, 1961 : A.Y. 2004-05 : Reason to believe : Where the AO has option to
rectify the assessment order u/s.154, reopening of assessment u/s.147 is not
justified.
[Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Bom.), W. P. No.
85 of 2009, dated 1-4-2010]
In the case of the petitioner, the assessment for the A.Y.
2004-05 was completed by an order dated 27-12-2006 passed u/s.143(3) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice
u/s.148, dated 7-4-2008 for reopening the assessment. Briefly, the reasons given
for reopening the assessment are as under :
“(i) The following deductions have been wrongly allowed in
the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act :
(a) Deduction of Rs.10,84,07,449 as loss of plantation
division, being 40% of the loss on sale of tea is wrongly allowed. Rule 8
applies to income and not for loss.
(b) Deduction of Rs.3,07,50,000 u/s.54EC has been
wrongly allowed since the transfer of the asset is on 29-9-2003 and the
date of allotment of the bond is 31-3-2004, which is beyond the prescribed
period of six months.
(c) Loss of Rs.1,33,49,654 of a unit eligible for
deduction u/s.10B has been wrongly allowed to be set off against normal
business income and this has resulted in excessive deduction u/s.10B to
that extent.
(ii) Deduction of loss of Rs.10,84,07,449 from
plantation division has been allowed twice and as such there is
computation error.
The Bombay High Court quashed the notice u/s. 148, dated
7-4-2008 and held as under :
“(i) Loss from plantation division : Rule 8 creates
a legal fiction, as a result of which the income which is derived from the
sale of tea is to be computed as if it is income derived from business. In the
present case, the Assessing Officer, while issuing a notice for re-opening the
assessment, observed that the provisions of Rule 8 are applicable ‘only in the
case of income’ and the claim of the assessee to set off 40% of losses against
normal business profits could not be allowed. On this basis the Assessing
Officer has formed the opinion that the loss of Rs.10.84 crores attributable
to the business activity of the assessee involving the manufacture and sale of
tea was liable to be disallowed. It is on the basis of Rule 8 that the
Assessing Officer seeks to postulate that the loss attributable to the
business activity of the assessee would have to be disregarded on the ground
that it is not allowable expenditure. This inference which is sought to be
drawn by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the plain meaning of the
charging provisions of the Act; and to Rule 8, besides being contrary to the
position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The assessee was lawfully
entitled to adjust the loss which arose as a result of the business activity
under Rule 8.
(ii) Deduction u/s.54EC : The assessee transferred
the asset on 29-9-2003. The period of six months was due to expire on
28-3-2004. The assessee invested an amount of Rs.3.07 crores on 19-3-2004. A
receipt was issued on that date by the National Housing Bank. A debit was
reflected in the bank account of the assessee to the extent of the sum
invested on 19-3-2004. The certificate of bond was issued by the National
Housing Bank on 9-6-2004, which refers to the date of allotment as 31-3-2004.
For the purpose of the provisions of S. 54EC, the date of the investment by
the assessee must be regarded as the date on which the payment was made and
received by the National Housing Bank. This was within a period of six months
from the date of the transfer of the asset. Consequently the provisions of S.
54EC were complied with by the assessee. There is absolutely no basis in the
ground for re-opening the assessment.
(iii) Loss incurred by eligible unit u/s.10B : While
re-opening the assessment, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis
that S. 10B provides an exemption and that in respect of the Crab Stick Unit
the assessee had suffered a loss of Rs.1.33 crores. The Assessing Officer has
observed that since the income of the unit was exempt from taxation, the loss
of the unit could not have been set off against the normal business income.
However this was allowed by the assessment order and it is opined that the
assessee’s income to the extent of Rs.1.33 crores has escaped assessment. The
Assessing Officer while re-opening the assessment ex-facie proceeded on
the erroneous premise that S. 10B is a provision in the nature of an
exemption. Plainly, S. 10B as it stands is not a provision in the nature of an
exemption, but provides for a deduction. The provision as it earlier stood was
in the nature of an exemption. After the substitution of S. 10B by the Finance
Act, 2000, the provision as it now stands provides for a deduction.
Consequently, it is evident that the basis on which the assessment has sought
to be re-opened is belied by a plain reading of the provision. The Assessing
Officer was plainly in error in proceeding on the basis that because the
income is exempted, the loss was not allowable. All the four units of the
assessee were eligible u/s.10B. Three units had returned a profit, while the
Crab Stick Unit had returned a loss. The assessee was entitled to a deduction
in respect of the profits of the three eligible units, while the loss
sustained by the fourth unit could be set off against the normal business
income. In the circumstances, the basis on which the assessment is sought to
be re-opened is contrary to the plain language of S. 10B.
(iv) Computational error : The other ground on which
the assessment is sought to be re-opened is the computational error in the
assessment order resulting in the deduction of the loss from plantation
division of Rs. 10.84 crores twice. There can be no dispute about the position
that the computational error that has been made by the Assessing Officer in
the present case is capable of being rectified u/s.154(1). Where the power to
rectify an order of assessment u/s.154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or
error in the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer must take recourse to
that power as opposed to the wider power to re-open the assessment. The
assessee cannot be penalised for a fault of the Assessing Officer. The
provisions of the statute lay down overlapping remedies which are available to
the Revenue, but the exercise of these remedies must be commensurate with the
purpose that is sought to be achieved by the Legislature. The re-opening of an
assessment u/s.147 has serious remifications. Therefore, before recourse can
be taken to the wider power to reopen the assessment on the ground that there
is a computation error, as in the present case, the Assessing Officer ought to
have rectified the mistake by adopting the remedy available u/s.154 of the
Act.
All statutory powers have to be exercised
reasonably. Where a statute confers an area of discretion, the exercise of that
discretion is structured by the requirement that discretionary powers must be
exercised reasonably. The remedies which the law provides are tailored to be
proportional to the situation which the remedy resolves. Where the statute
provides for several remedies, the choice of the remedy must be appropriate to
the underlying basis and object of the conferment of the remedy. A simple
computational error can be resolved by rectifying an order of assessment
u/s.154(1). It would be entirely arbitrary for the Assessing Officer to reopen
the entire assessment u/s.147 to rectify an error or mistake which can be
rectified u/s.154. An arbitrary exercise of power is certainly not a
consequence which the Parliament contemplates. We, therefore, hold that in this
case the Revenue has an efficacious remedy open to it in the form of a
rectification u/s.154 for correcting the computational error and that
consequently recourse to the provisions of S. 147 was not warranted.
For all the aforesaid
reasons, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer could not possibly have
formed a belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within
the meaning of S. 147.”
