7. Dell India (P) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [Writ Appeal No. 1145 of 2015, dated 27th January, 2021 (Karnataka High Court)(FB)]
Section 147 – Reassessment – Oversight, inadvertence or mistake of A.O. or error discovered by him on reconsideration of same material is mere change of opinion and does not give him power to reopen a concluded assessment
By the order dated 2nd September, 2015, a Division Bench of the Court directed that this writ appeal should be placed before the Chief Justice for considering the issue of referring the following three questions to a larger Bench. The said three questions are as under:
‘1. Whether the Division Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rinku Chakraborthy [2011] 242 ITR 425 lays down good law?
2. Whether the judgment in Rinku Chakraborthy (Supra) is per incurium in view of the fact that it relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1976 CTR 85, which has been specifically overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1979] 110 ITR 996?
3. Whether “reason to believe” in the context of section 147 of the Income-tax Act can be based on mere “change of opinion” of the A.O.?’
The scope of the adjudication is limited to deciding the three questions of law framed by the Division Bench.
The assessee company manufactures and sells computer hardware and other related products. It provides warranty services to the customers and the price of the standard warranty period is covered by the sale price of the computer hardware and other products. The assessee company also provides extended or upsell warranty which covers the period beyond the standard warranty. It charges an additional amount as consideration for this. Although the assessee company recovers the consideration for extended warranty with the price of the products along with sales tax or service tax, as the case may be, the revenue in connection with extended warranty is recognised and offered to income-tax proportionately over the period of the service contract, which spreads beyond the financial year in which the sale in relation to the product concerned is made. The assessee has adopted the ‘deferred revenue’ system under the mercantile system of accounting.
During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. examined the issue of deferred revenue by calling for details from the assessee. He agreed with the accounting system followed by the assessee as regards accounting of the consideration for extended warranty.
A notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. While arriving at the net revenue of Rs. 31,10,85,96,000 for the A.Y. 2009-10, reduction of Rs. 2,16,89,00,773 was made as smart debits deferred revenue account. It is alleged in the reasons that the said income of Rs. 2,16,89,00,773 had escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10.
The assessee replied to the notice u/s 148 and objected to the reasons recorded. It submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 are based on mere change of opinion and hence cannot be termed as valid reasons. It was submitted that as the A.O. has taken a different view for different assessment years, it amounts to merely a change of opinion. The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, by a letter dated 24th February, 2015, rejected the objections raised by the assessee and directed it to appear for the reassessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Being aggrieved by the said notice u/s 148 and the rejection of its preliminary objections to the said notice, a writ petition was filed before the learned single Judge of the High Court. The Judge rejected the petition on the ground that there was no error in initiation of the proceedings u/s 148.
The assessee submitted that in the case Rinku Chakraborthy [2011] 242 CTR 425 the Division Bench had concluded that where an A.O. erroneously fails to tax a part of the assessable income, there is an income escaping assessment and, accordingly, the A.O. has jurisdiction u/s 147 to reopen the assessment. In doing so, it relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company [1976] 1 SCC 985. It is further submitted that the observations made in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company (Supra) are no longer good law in their entirety, in the light of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society [1979] 4 SCC 248 where the Apex Court held that those particular observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Company did not lay down the correct position of law. In the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society, it is clear that a mistake, oversight or inadvertence in assessing any income would not give the power to an A.O. to reopen the assessment by exercise of powers u/s 147. That would amount to a review, which is outside the scope of section 147.
The subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society was not brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy. He urged that there are specific provisions in the Act for correcting errors / mistakes such as the power of rectification u/s 154 and one cannot resort to section 147 to correct errors or to review an earlier order.
The Division Bench held that the decision in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy is based only on what is held in clause (2) of paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company. The decision rendered in the latter case was by a Bench of two Judges. Subsequently, a larger Bench of three Judges in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society has clearly held that oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the A.O. or error discovered by him on the reconsideration of the same material does not give him power to reopen a concluded assessment. It was expressly held that the decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company on this aspect does not lay down the correct law. The decision in the case of Rinku Chakraborthy is based solely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company and in particular what is held in clause (2) of paragraph 13. The said part is held as not a good law by a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society.
The second question was answered in the affirmative, in view of the consistent decisions of the Apex Court holding that ‘reason to believe’ in the context of section 147 cannot be based on mere change of opinion of the A.O.
The third question was answered in the negative. The Court observed that in view of settled law, framing of question No. 3 was not warranted at all.
