M/s Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Madras High Court) – As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the taxable amount has escaped assessment, two conditions were required to be satisfied on the basis of the materials placed before him. 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 the first condition alone is suffice. In other words if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that certain income asses-sable to tax 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. Hence, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:- 08.03.2011
T.C.(A) No. 41 of 2008
M/s. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income-tax Officer
Tax Case Appeal filed against the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench ‘B’ in I.T.A. No.1340 (MDS)/2006.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)
The above Tax Case Appeal is filed against the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench ‘B’ in I.T.A. No.1340 (MDS)/2006.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the assessee- Company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-1999 on 30.10.1998 admitting ‘Nil’ income, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 10.5.1999. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 26.11.1999 admitting ‘Nil’ income by enclosing some more TDS certificates that were omitted to be enclosed along with the original return of income, which were also processed on 29.3.2001. Again a revised order was passed on 27.6.2002 giving credit to some more TDS certificates which resulted in an additional refund of Rs.8,86,226/-.
3. Thereafter, it was noticed that on a perusal of records, the assessee- Company had not computed the income under Section 115 JA of the Act properly. Therefore, on facts, there was a reason to believe that the income asses sable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the same, a proceeding under Section 147 of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 23.12.2003. In response to the said notice, the assessee’s representative M/s.N.C.Rajagopal & Co. Chartered Accountants vide their letter dated 5.1.2004 informed that the original return filed for the Assessment Year 1998-99 may be treated as the one filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Further, notice for hearing under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.12.2004. In response to this notice, Shri. R. Niranjan Chawala of M/s. N.C. Rajagopal & Co., Chartered Accountants appeared on behalf of the assessee.
4. After hearing the representative of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has given his reasons for re-opening the assessment for the assessment Year 1998-99 as follows:-
” (A) The assessee Company has not admitted income under section 115JA under the pretext of having unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed loss.
(B) The provisions for bad and doubtful debts was omitted to be considered for arriving the book profit u/s. 115JA of the Act.
(c) The assessee company has not credited the Royalty written back in the P & L A/c which were written back by the collaborator which is clearly a taxable income.
Therefore, the aforesaid reasons are the basis leading to the conclusion that income otherwise taxable has escaped assessment and hence, the notice u/s. 148 has been issued to you for the A.Y. 1998-99.”
5. The Assessing Officer, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that as per Section 115JA, the assessee did not have any business loss or unabsorbed depreciation to be carried out to Assessment Year 1998-99. Further, the assessee claims that provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 3,14,37,439/- is an ascertained liability and hence this is not liable for inclusion in book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA. However, as per the decision of this Court in the case of DEPUTY CIT v. BEARDS SHELL LTD. reported in 244 ITR 256, provision for bad and doubtful debts not written off in the Profit and Loss Account does not represent ‘ascertained liability’ and this is certainly liable for inclusion in book profit. But for such a claim which is not an ascertained liability the book profit would have been higher. By resorting to such claim, the assessee has clearly tried to suppress its income.
6. Further, the assessee has claimed that an accumulated royalty of Rs.2,61,18,013/- which was debited in the P & L account for the Assessment Years 1991-92 to 1997-98 was written back to the P & L Account for this assessment year since the royalty was waived by their Collaborator M/s. Kone OY Finland. The assessee considered this royalty written back in the ‘P & L Account Appropriation Account’, instead of crediting the same in the P & L Account. Since the royalty had been debited to P & L Account from the accounting year ending 31.3.1991 on wards, the waiver of royalty is clearly a taxable income and has to be treated as income and the book profit u/s. 115JA of the Act has to be arrived at accordingly.
7. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III and the said appeal was allowed by an order dated 17.2.2006, holding as follows:-
” I have considered the various submissions made by the appellant’s representative both on the issue of jurisdiction and on merits. After going through the documents furnished in support of the facts that a valid notice u/s 143(2) has been issued within the time limit permitted under the Act and allowing the proceedings to remain inconclusive, the Assessing Officer does not get jurisdiction to initiate action u/s. 148 of the Act as held by the apex court in the two cases relied on by the appellant. I, therefore, hold that the assessment has not been validly reopened and hence the impugned order passed is ab initio void. In as much as the reassessment proceedings have been struck down as not valid in law, other grounds of appeal are not considered. The appellant succeeds on this ground.”
8. As against the said order, the Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its order dated 15.10.2007, reversed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, holding as under:-
” We have heard the rival submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) within the time permitted under the Act and allowed the proceedings to remain inconclusive. According to the Commissioner (Appeals) under such circumstances the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate action under section 148 of the Act. It was made clear before us that the time for completing the assessment under section 143(3) did expire. No proceedings in this regard were pending before the Assessing Officer. As such there was no error in the issuance of notice under section 148. We have taken into consideration the entire conspectus of the case. In our opinion the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in quashing the assessment on the ground that the proceedings pursuant to the notice under section 143(2) were inconclusive. Since no proceedings were pending in this regard we hold that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was valid under the law. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issue afresh.”
As against the said order, the assessee has filed the present tax case appeal.
