Case Law Details
It thus remains an undisputed fact that no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment. Now, what is to be seen is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, since no addition has been made on the reasons recorded, no reasons for reopening the completed assessment survive and, consequently, the completed assessment could not have been reopened, or whether in spite of no addition having been made qua the reasons recorded, those reasons still survive and the reopening on the basis of those reasons is in order, as maintained by the department.
In ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories’ (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows:-
“The very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were recorded was income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but while these items were not disturbed, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I which was not permissible. The Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated but he was not justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive.”
Thus, the ratio of ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories’ (supra) is that where the reasons for initiation of reopening proceedings cease to survive, the Assessing Officer is not justified to re-assess issues other than the issues in respect of which the reopening proceedings were initiated.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
