NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD (NDTV) v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT U/S 148

written by Income tax Expert | April 16, 2020

Above case is a Landmark Judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD (NDTV) v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX dt. 03.04.2020.

The case relates to A.Y. 2008-09 wherein original assessment was done u/s 143(3) vide order Dt. 03.08.2012. Thereafter, a notice was issued on assessee Dt. 31.03.2015 stating that revenue has reasons to believe that net income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2008-09 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 148 of the Income Tax act. The notice was issued after 4 year but within 6 years from the end of relevant assessment year.

The main reason given was that in the following assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009­10, the assessing officer had proposed a substantial addition of Rs. 642 crores to the account of the assessee on account of monies raised by the assessee through its subsidiaries NDTV BV, The Netherlands, NDTV Networks BV, The Netherlands (NNBV), NDTV Networks International Holdings BV, The Netherlands (NNIH) and NNPLC.

The last portion of the communication dt. 04.08.2015 giving reasons to the assessee reads as follows:­
“7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the findings of the DRP holding the funds received by NNPLC as the funds of the assessee New Delhi Television Limited under sham transactions, there is a reason to believe that the funds amounting to Rs.405.09 crores introduced into the books of NNPLC during the FY 2007­-08 in the form of Step Up Coupon Bonds pertain to the assessee New Delhi Television Limited only. I have therefore reason to believe that the income of the assessee New Delhi Television Limited for AY 2008­-09 amounting to at least Rs.405.09 crores has escaped assessment. It is also recorded that the escapement is due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts material for assessment.”

The assessee filed reply to the notice and reasons given, and claimed that there had been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary to make an assessment. Assessee also claimed that the proceedings had been initiated on a mere change of opinion and there was no reason to believe. It was submitted that the notice had been issued beyond the period of limitation of 4 years. According to the assessee it had not withheld any material facts and, therefore, limitation of 6 years as applicable to the first proviso to Section 147 would not apply.

As per first proviso to Section 147:

“Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:”

The assessing officer held that there was non­disclosure of material facts by the assessee and the notice would be within limitation since NNPLC was a foreign entity and admittedly a subsidiary of the assessee and the income was being derived through this foreign entity. Hence, the case of the assessee would fall within the 2nd proviso of Section 147 of the Act and the extended period of 16 years would be applicable. The objections were accordingly rejected.

Observations by Supreme Court:

A perusal of the aforesaid judgments clearly shows that subsequent facts which come to the knowledge of the assessing officer can be taken into account to decide whether the assessment proceedings should be re­opened or not. Information which comes to the notice of the assessing officer during proceedings for subsequent assessment years can definitely form tangible material to invoke powers vested with the assessing officer under Section 147 of the Act.

The material disclosed in the assessment proceedings for the subsequent years as well as the material placed on record by the minority shareholders form the basis for taking action under Section 147 of the Act. At the stage of issuance of notice, the assessing officer is to only form a prima facie view. In our opinion the material disclosed in assessment proceedings for subsequent years was sufficient to form such a view. We accordingly hold that there were reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment in this case. Question No.1 is answered accordingly.

We are clearly of the view that the revenue in view of its counter­ affidavit before the High Court that it was not relying upon the non­ disclosure of facts by the assessee could not have been permitted to orally urge the same. Even otherwise we find that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for its assessment and, therefore, the revenue cannot take benefit of the extended period of limitation of 6 years. We answer Question No.2 accordingly.

In this regard we may make reference to the notice dated 31.03.2015. The notice is conspicuously silent with regard to the second proviso. It does not rely upon the second proviso and basically relies on the provision of Section 148 of the Act. The reasons communicated to the assessee on 04.08.2015 mention ‘reason to believe’ and non­ disclosure of material facts by the assessee. There is no case set up in relation to the second proviso either in the notice or even in the reasons supplied on 04.08.2015 with regard to the notice. It is only while rejecting the objections of the assessee that reference has been made to the second proviso in the order of disposal of objections dated 23.11.2015.

Second proviso to section 147:

“Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year:”

If the revenue is to rely upon the second proviso and wanted to urge that the limitation of 16 years would apply, then in our opinion in the notice or at least in the reasons in support of the notice, the assessee should have been put to notice that the revenue relies upon the second proviso. The assessee could not be taken by surprise at the stage of rejection of its objections or at the stage of proceedings before the High Court that the notice is to be treated as a notice invoking provisions of the second proviso of Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the third question by holding that the notice issued to the assessee and the supporting reasons did not invoke provisions of the second proviso of Section 147 of the Act and therefore at this stage the revenue cannot be permitted to take benefit of the second proviso.

We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show non­ disclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed. Having held so, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on whether on facts of this case the revenue could take benefit of the second proviso or not. Therefore, the revenue may issue fresh notice taking benefit of the second proviso if otherwise permissible under law. We make it clear that both the parties shall be at liberty to raise all contentions with regard to the validity of such notice. All pending application(s) shall stand(s) disposed of.

To read the full judgement CLICK HERE.

 

This article is just for information purpose it is always advisable to hire a professional for practical execution. If you need assistance you can ask a question to our expert and get the answer within an hour or post a comment about your views on the post and also subscribe to our newsletter for latest weekly updates.