{"id":5369,"date":"2012-08-14T11:31:51","date_gmt":"2012-08-14T11:31:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5369"},"modified":"2012-08-14T11:31:51","modified_gmt":"2012-08-14T11:31:51","slug":"telco-dadajee-dhackjee-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-third-member-s-1431-assessment-cannot-be-reopened-us-147-in-absence-of-new-material","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/telco-dadajee-dhackjee-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-third-member-s-1431-assessment-cannot-be-reopened-us-147-in-absence-of-new-material\/","title":{"rendered":"Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (Telco_Dadajee_Dhackjee_147_reopening_TM.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nS. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened u\/s 147 in absence of \u201cnew material\u201d
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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

(ii) The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator<\/strong> 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 \u201creason to believe\u201d and held that the AO did not have the power to review<\/strong>. While in that case of a s. 143(1) intimation, the assessee cannot challenge the reopening on the ground of \u2018change of opinion\u201d, he can challenge it on the ground that there were no \u201creasons to believe\u201d 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 \u201ctangible material\u201d that income has escaped assessment<\/strong>. On facts, there was no \u201ctangible material\u201d<\/strong> to support the belief that non-compete fees and depreciation had resulted in escapement of income chargeable to tax (Rajesh Jhaveri<\/strong> 291 ITR 500 (SC) distinguished).<\/p>\n

\nFor more see Guide to the law on reopening of assessments u\/s 147 of the Income-tax Act<\/a><\/strong>. See also H. V. Transmissions<\/strong><\/a> & Tata International<\/a><\/strong> where the same issues are discussed<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened u\/s 147 in absence of \u201cnew material\u201d 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 …<\/p>\n

Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member)<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}