ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
provides for reassessment of income which has escaped assessment for any
assessment year. The section reads as under:
“Income Escaping Assessment
If the Assessing Officer has reason to
believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any
assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153,
assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax
which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the
course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the
depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the
assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153
referred to as the relevant assessment year) :
Provided that where an assessment under
sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant
assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry
of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of
the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or
in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section
148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his
assessment, for that assessment year:”
The issue of applicability of the above
referred proviso to section 147 has come
up before the courts in cases where no assessment has been made u/s. 143(3),
but merely an intimation has been issued u/s. 143(1). In other words, in cases
where more than 4 years have expired from the end of the relevant assessment
year, is the A.O. required to satisfy and establish that there was a failure on
the part of the assessee to disclose
fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for a valid
reopening of the case? While the Madras High Court has taken the view that
the proviso applies even in cases of
intimation u/s. 143(1) and the A.O is
required to establish that there was a failure to disclose material facts
before reopening a case, the Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary view that
the proviso applies only in the case of
assessments u/s. 143(3).
EL FORGE’S CASE
The issue came up before the Madras High
Court in the case of EL Forge Ltd vs. Dy CIT 45 taxmann.com 402.
In this case, an intimation was issued u/s.
143(1) on 31st December, 1991 for assessment year 1989-90. The
assessing officer thereafter noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction
u/s. 80HH and 80-I on the total income before set off of unabsorbed losses of
earlier years. Therefore, as the assessing officer was of the view that the
assessee was not entitled to deduction under chapter VI-A, reassessment proceedings
were initiated u/s. 147 and a notice was issued u/s. 148 on 15th
December, 1997.
The assessee objected to the reopening of
the assessment, contending that as the reopening was made after a lapse of 4
years from the end of the assessment year, and as there was no failure on the
part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for making the
assessment, the reopening was not valid.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the
assessee’s claim and dismissed the appeal, holding that the reopening of the
assessment by the assessing officer was perfectly in order. The Tribunal held
that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts, and
therefore agreed with the finding of the assessing officer as well as the
Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the reopening of the assessment was
justified, as it was well within the period provided for under the proviso to
section 147.
Before the Madras High Court, besides pointing
out on behalf of the assessee that the notice u/s. 147 did not give any
independent reasons for reopening of assessment u/s. 147, it was argued that the details of the income
computation were very much before the assessing officer. The assessee therefore
claimed that the assessing officer had not shown that there was a failure to
disclose material facts necessary for assessment.
The Madras High Court observed that the
facts of the case showed that there was no denial of the fact that the assessee
had disclosed details of carry forward of the losses as well as the computation
of income, and that these details were very much before the assessing officer.
It observed that there was no denial of the fact that there was no failure on
the part of the assessee in disclosing the facts necessary for assessment, and
there was no allegation that the escapement of income was on account of failure
of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment.
Applying the decision of the Supreme Court
in Kelvinator’s case, the Madras High Court accepted the argument of the
assessee that the assumption of jurisdiction beyond four years was hit by the
limitation provided under the proviso to section 147. The Madras High Court
therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee.
LAXMIRAJ DISTRIBUTORS’ CASE
The issue again came up before the Gujarat
High Court in the case of Pr CIT vs. Laxmiraj Distributors (P) Ltd 250
Taxman 455.
In this case, the assessee, a company, had
filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 13th
September, 2009. The return was accepted and an intimation was issued u/s.
143(1). Subsequently, a survey was carried out on the premises of the company.
During the course of such survey, several documents were seized and a statement
of a director of the company was recorded on 30th August, 2012.
The assessee also wrote a letter on 4th
September, 2012 to the assessing officer, in which it stated that the company
had verified its records for various years, that it might not be possible to substantiate certain
issues and transactions recorded in the regular books of account as required by
law, as it would take a lot of time and effort, and that it would like to avoid
protracted litigation. To avoid litigation and penalty and to buy peace, the
company stated that it would voluntarily disclose an amount of Rs. 9 crore as
it’s undisclosed income, comprising of Rs. 7.52 crore for assessment year
2009-10 towards share capital reserves and Rs. 1.48 crore for assessment year
2013-14 towards estimated profit for the year of survey. In such letter,
details of the companies to which 7.52 lakh shares were allotted with premium
of Rs. 6.77 crore were given.
In spite of such letter, the company did not
offer such income to tax. The assessing officer therefore issued notice on 13th
February, 2013 u/s. 148, to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2009-10.
The reason recorded for such reassessment was that the income disclosed as a
result of survey at Rs. 7.52 crore was over and above the income of Rs. 78.47
lakh returned in the original return of income.
In reassessment proceedings, an addition of
Rs. 7.52 crore as bogus share capital was made. The Commissioner (Appeals)
rejected the assessee’s appeal.
The ground of
validity of the notice of reopening was raised before the Tribunal for the
first time. The Tribunal permitted raising of such ground, since it touched
upon the very jurisdiction of the assessing officer to reassess the income.
The Tribunal held that reopening of
assessment was bad in law, and therefore it did not enter into the question of
correctness of the additions. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court
decisions in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, and Asst
CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd 291 ITR 500, and the decision
of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) (P) Ltd vs. M
Gopalan, Dy CIT 356 ITR 481, and proceeded to annul the reassessment on the
ground that the formation of belief by the assessing officer that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment was erroneous on account of the fact that there was no
corroborative evidence casting doubts on the assessee’s share capital received
up to the date of issue of the notice of reopening. According to the Tribunal, the
basic tenet of cause effect relationship between the reasons for reopening and
the taxable income having escaped assessment was not made out by the assessing
officer.
The Gujarat High Court observed that, in the
case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court
highlighted a clear distinction between assessment under section 143(1) and
assessment made by the assessing officer after scrutiny u/s. 143(3). Such distinction was noticed in the background of the
notice of reassessment where the return of the assessee was accepted u/s.
143(1). The Supreme Court had observed that, in the scheme of things, the
intimation u/s. 143 (1) could not be treated to be an order of assessment, and
that being the position, the question of change of opinion did not arise. The
Gujarat High Court further observed that the ratio of the decision was
reiterated in a later judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dy CIT
vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co Ltd 373 ITR 661.
The Gujarat High Court also referred to its
decision in the case of Inductotherm (supra), where the court observed
that even in case of reopening of an assessment where the return was accepted
without scrutiny, the requirement that the assessing officer had reason to
believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, would apply.
The Gujarat High Court further referred to
the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra),
where it had been held that the reasons for the formation of the belief contemplated
by section 147 for the reopening of an assessment must have a rational
connection or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational
connection postulated that there must be a direct nexus or live link between
the material coming to the notice of the assessing officer and the formation of
his belief that there had been escapement of the income of the assessee from
assessment.
Culling out the ratio of those decisions,
the Gujarat High Court stated that what broadly emerged was that there was a
vital distinction between the reopening of an assessment where the return of an
assessee had been accepted u/s. 143 (1) without scrutiny, and where the
scrutiny assessment had been framed.
According to the Gujarat High Court, in the former case, the assessing officer
could not be stated to have formed any opinion, and therefore, unlike in the
latter case, the concept of change of opinion would have no applicability. The
common thread that would run through both sets of exercises of reopening of assessment
was that the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
Looking at the facts of the case and the
observations of the Tribunal, the Gujarat High Court observed that the Tribunal
had evaluated the evidence on record in minutest detail, as if each limb of the
assessing officer’s reasons recorded for issuing notice of reassessment was in
the nature of an addition made in assessment order, which had either to be
upheld or reversed, which, according to the High Court, was simply
impermissible.
The Gujarat High Court referred to the
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy
CIT 384 ITR 337, where the Delhi High Court had taken the view that where
the return initially filed was processed u/s. 143(1), there was no occasion for
the assessing officer to form an opinion after examining the documents enclosed
with the return. In other words, the requirement in the first proviso to
section 147 of there having to be a failure on the part of the assessee “to
disclose fully and truly all material facts” did not at all apply whether the
initial return had been processed u/s. 143(1). In that case, the Delhi High
Court had taken the view that it was not necessary in such a case for the
assessing officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons
to believe that income had escaped assessment.
The Gujarat
High Court thereafter considered the decision of the Madras High Court in the
case of EL Forge (supra) and expressed its inability to concur with the
view of the Madras High Court in the said case where it held that the condition
that there was a failure to disclose the material facts for the purposes of
assessment was required to be satisfied even in cases of intimation issued u/s.
143(1). According to the Gujarat High Court, the proviso to section 147 would
apply only in a case where an assessment
had been framed after scrutiny. In a case where the return was accepted u/s.
143(1), the additional requirement that income chargeable to tax had escaped
assessment on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose
truly and fully all material facts, would simply not apply. According to the
Gujarat High Court, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelvinator’s
case did not apply, to the facts of the
case before the court, as that was a case in which the original assessment was
framed after scrutiny.
The Gujarat High Court therefore allowed the
appeal of the revenue, quashing the conclusion of the Tribunal that the notice
of reopening of assessment was invalid.
OBSERVATIONS
Reading the proviso in the manner, as is read by the Gujarat High Court, would mean that in all
cases of the intimation u/s. 143(1) where other things are equal, the time
limit for reopening gets automatically extended to six years from the end of
the assessment year and that the requirement to satisfy the disclosure test has
to be met with only in cases of assessment u/s. 143(3) and is otherwise dispensed with in cases of intimation u/s. 143(1). On a reading
of the Proviso this does not appear to be the case and even on the touchstone
of common sense there appears to be a
case that the requirement to satisfy the disclosure test should not be
restricted to section 143(3) cases only. A failure by the AO to initiate the
proceedings u/s. 143(2) and again under the main provisions of section 147,
within the time prescribed under the respective provisions can not be remedied
by resorting to the reading of the proviso in a convenient manner that
gives a license to the AO to reopen a
case even after a lapse of a long time
and deny the finality to the proceedings in cases where there otherwise is not
a failure to disclose the material on the part of the assessee. Such an
understanding is strongly supported by the overall scheme of the Income tax
Act.
In cases where the assesssee has disclosed
the material facts and the AO has failed to have a prima facie look into
the facts, in time, and fails to pursue the matter appropriately, within the
prescribed time, it is reasonable to hold that his power to reopen a case comes
to an end irrespective of the fact that the assessment was not made u/s.
143(3).
Even otherwise, it is not unreasonable to
hold that in cases where the assessee has made an adequate disclosure of facts,
then the same are deemed to have been considered by the AO and therefore his
inaction, within the prescribed time, should be construed to be a case of a
change of opinion.
It is difficult to appreciate that the
standards that are applicable to the cases covered by section 143(3) are not
applied to cases covered by section 143(1) for no fault of the assessee more so when the assessee has no control over
the action or inaction of the AO. It is not the assessee who prevented the AO
from scrutinising the return of income. In fact, permitting the AO to have a
longer time than it is prescribed is giving him a premium for his inefficiency
of not having acted within the time when he should have.
The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Laxmiraj’s
case, is the one delivered on very peculiar facts involving an admission by the
assessee firm at the time of survey and not following it us with the offer for
tax in spite of admitted facts that were not denied by the assessee later on at
the time of even reassessment. The SLP file by the assessee against the
decision has been rejected by the Supreme Court 95 taxxmann.com
109(SC).
The Madras High Court in case of TANMAC India vs. Dy.CIT 78 taxmann.com 155 (Mad.) held
that if after issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing
Officer did not issue notice of scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act, it
would not be open for the Assessing Officer thereafter to resort to reopening
of the assessment. The High Court in deciding the case placed heavy reliance on
the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354
ITR 536 in which the distinction between scrutiny assessment and a
situation where return has been accepted u/s. 143(1) was narrowed down. The
Court had applied the concept of true and full disclosure even in case of
reopening assessment where return was accepted u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
It seems that the excessive reliance on the
ratio of the Supreme Court cases in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers’ case
(supra) and Zuari Estate & Investment Co.‘s case (supra) requires a fresh
consideration and perhaps was uncalled for. The issue in those cases has been about whether there could be a
change of opinion in a case where an intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued and
whether there was a need to have the
reason to believe that income has escaped income in such cases of intimation
and whether an intimation was different form an order. The issue under consideration, namely, the
application of the first proviso to section 147 was not an issue before
the court in both the cases. It is
respectfully submitted that in the below quoted part of the decision, the
Supreme Court inter alia held that the condition of the First Proviso to
section 147 were required to be satisfied for a valid reopening of a case
involving even an intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
“The scope and effect of section
147 as substituted with effect from 1-4-1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are
substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such
substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and
(b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the
past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction
under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the
Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains
chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also
have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of
either omission or failure on the part
of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his
assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be
satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice
under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section
147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the
Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has
escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is
however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case
falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147.” The disclosure of
the material facts is a factor that can not be ignored even in the case of
intimation simply because the first proviso expressly refers only to the order
of assessment u/s. 143(3). It appears that the last word on the subject has yet
to be said and sooner the same is said by the Supreme Court, is better.
