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

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member)

Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 14, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Telco_Dadajee_Dhackjee_147_reopening_TM.pdf)


S. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 in absence of “new material”

The assessee filed a ROI in which it claimed deduction for non-compete fees and depreciation on leased premises which was accepted by the AO vide Intimation u/s 143(1). Thereafter, he issued a notice u/s 148 seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that the expenses were not allowable. The assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that (a) the AO had not given a copy of the recorded reasons and (b) there was no fresh material to justify the reopening. Before the Tribunal, though the division bench agreed that there was no new material, the AM held that in the case of a s. 143(1) intimation, new material was not required while the JM took the contrary view. On a reference to the Third Member HELD by the Third Member:

(i) If the recorded reasons are not furnished to the assessee, it is fatal to the validity of the s. 148 notice issued for reopening the assessment (Fomento Resorts & Videsh Sanchar Nigam 340 ITR 66 (Bom) (SLP dismissed) followed);

(ii) The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator 320 ITR 561 does not cover only a case where a s. 143(3) assessment is passed but also covers a case where only a s. 143(1) intimation is passed. The Supreme Court interpreted the words “reason to believe” and held that the AO did not have the power to review. While in that case of a s. 143(1) intimation, the assessee cannot challenge the reopening on the ground of ‘change of opinion”, he can challenge it on the ground that there were no “reasons to believe” that income had escaped assessment or that the said reasons did not have a live link with the formation of the belief. Even in the case of a s. 143(1) intimation, the AO must have “tangible material” that income has escaped assessment. On facts, there was no “tangible material” to support the belief that non-compete fees and depreciation had resulted in escapement of income chargeable to tax (Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC) distinguished).

For more see Guide to the law on reopening of assessments u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act. See also H. V. Transmissions & Tata International where the same issues are discussed

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Bombay Diamond Co (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In Apollo Tyres Ltd 265 ITR 273 and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd 262 ITR 340 it was held that if the accounts were prepared in accordance with Schedule VI, the AO had no jurisdiction to make adjustments beyond what was provided in s. 115JB. However, as the assessee had…
  2. Airlines Rotables vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the Revenue that there is a “Dependent Agent PE” under Article 5(4)(b) is also not correct. The rationale of a Dependent Agent PE is that the foreign enterprise carries on business through a dependent agent, who is integrated into the principal’s business to a substantial extent….
  3. Shantilal M. Jain vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Though it is the case of the revenue that due to volume, magnitude, frequency, continuity, regularity, the ratio between purchase and sale clearly indicate that income on account of purchase and sale of shares should be treated as income from business and not as income from STCG, the AO…
  4. Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In Bhraman Madhav Murthi Mandal vs Joint Charity Commissioner, the Court dealt with the issue whether a company holding property for public religious and charitable purposes is required to be registered under the Public Trust Act. This does not mean that registration as a public trust is a condition…
  5. DCIT vs. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Limited (ITAT Hyderabad) 

    A company with 20 times turnover (Wipro BPO) more than the assessee is not at all comparable because the assessee is a pygmy compared to a giant. Accordingly Wipro BPO has to be excluded from the list of comparable companiesRead more ›

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*