Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Kelvinator of India (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Kelvinator of India (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (kelvinator_reopening_change_of_opinion.pdf)

AO deemed to have applied his mind if facts are on record and reopening u/s 147 on change of opinion is not permissible even within 4 years

In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It was held that if it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. It was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the AO. Hence, after 1.4.1989, the AO has power to re-open, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words “reason to believe” did not mean a change of opinion.

Note: The judgements of the Bombay High Court in Asteroid Trading 308 ITR 190 & Asian Paints 308 ITR 195 are impliedly approved while that of the Allahabad High Court in EMA India 30 DTR (All) 82 (which had dissented from the Full Bench judgement in Kelvinator) is impliedly overruled. See Also Idea Cellular 301 ITR 407 (Bom), Hari Iron 263 ITR 437 (P&H) and Eicher 294 ITR 310 (Del) where it was held that the fact that there is no discussion in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind. For a round-up of important judgements, see Core Principles of Reassessment with Important Case Laws.

Related Posts:

  • CIT vs. Carpet India (Supreme Court) we are not in the agreement with the decisions in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 & Sushil Kumar Gupta 210 TM 251 (SC) and as Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC specifically reduces deduction of 90% of the amount referable to Section 28 (iiia) to (iiie) of the IT Act,…
  • Goodyear India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) In our opinion, such communication(s) cannot be treated as admission of non-disclosure as such. What is significant to note is that in the present case, the disclosure is attributed to Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co., USA, filed by it in the proceedings in USA; and not by the assessee as…
  • CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd (Supreme Court) Though both the Notification and communication are not binding on CBDT to decide whether ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of Section 80-IA of the IT Act, the appellant herein is unable to put forward any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and communication should…
  • Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court) We uphold the view of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court in para 63 (i) of the judgment to the effect that foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in nonlitigation side. We, however, modify the direction…
  • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Deductions under Section 43B is allowable only when sum is actually paid by the assessee. In the present case, the Excise Duty leviable on appellant on manufacture of vehicles was already adjusted in the concerned assessment year from the credit of Excise Duty under the MODVAT scheme. The unutilised credit…
  • PCIT vs. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court) Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to clarify…

Related Judgements

  1. Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not … Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Read…
  2. Sahara India vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench) 

    Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the AO to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the…
  3. CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance (Supreme Court) 

    The amount of share application money received by a Company from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under S. 68 of I. T. Act for the simple reason that if the names of the alleged bogus shareholders are given to the AO, then the Department is…
  4. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara (Supreme Court) 

    The Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, is applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it is ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature. CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) followed.
    Read more ›
  5. UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning (Supreme Court) 

    Held in the context of s. 11AC of the Excise Act (which provides that where any duty of excise has not been .. paid .. by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts ….. or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act…