Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, Replika Press Private Limited, operates a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing and exporting printed books.
  • The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2005-06 on October 29, 2005, claiming an exemption of ₹2,61,41,144/- under Section 10B.
  • Along with the return, the petitioner provided a complete break-up of its export turnover and local turnover. The export turnover included the FOB value of exports along with "constructive exports" or Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplies.
  • The petitioner printed books for overseas publishers and supplied them to parties within India based on direct instructions from those foreign publishers. The payments were received via normal banking channels in convertible foreign exchange.
  • During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a specific questionnaire on August 22, 2007, under Question No. 11(b), explicitly asking for a note on DTA supplies and why they were included in the export turnover.
  • The petitioner filed a detailed reply on September 13, 2007, justifying the inclusion of constructive exports.
  • The AO considered the reply and framed the regular assessment under Section 143(3) on October 4, 2007, accepting the claim after making a minor statutory adjustment for telecommunication charges.
  • Subsequently, an internal revenue audit party raised an objection, stating that DTA sales do not constitute export turnover and that the deduction under Section 10B was excessively allowed by ₹1,31,65,878/-.
  • Based on the audit note, the AO issued a notice dated February 24, 2009, under Section 148 to re-open the assessment. The petitioner filed objections, which were rejected on December 7, 2009. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the notice and the rejection order.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether the invocation of Section 147/148 by the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment constitutes a impermissible "change of opinion" when the issue was already examined during the original assessment proceedings.
  2. Whether an internal revenue audit party can comment on an interpretation of a point of law (specifically, Section 10B of the Income Tax Act) to trigger re-assessment proceedings.

 Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that the AO had thoroughly applied his mind to the issue of DTA sales/constructive exports during the original scrutiny assessment by raising specific queries and recording findings in the assessment order. Therefore, re-opening the case on the same material amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is illegal.
  • It was argued that the re-opening was prompted solely by an internal audit note. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (119 ITR 996), the petitioner argued that an audit party is completely precluded from commenting on or interpreting a point of law.

 Respondent’s Arguments

  • The revenue defended the re-opening by asserting that supply to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) in India does not legally constitute an "export out of India".
  • They argued that because DTA sales were wrongfully factored into the export turnover calculations, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment under Section 147 due to a failure on the part of the assessee to truly disclose material facts.
  • The revenue relied upon the ITAT Delhi bench ruling in Indian Delco (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (59 ITD 268) to support its stance that domestic sales cannot be treated as exports.

 Court's Findings & Order

  • The High Court observed that during the original assessment under Section 143(3), the AO had explicitly questioned the petitioner about the DTA supplies and received a comprehensive explanation. The AO then consciously included the DTA supplies in both the final assessment order text and the attached calculation sheets.
  • Consequently, the Court held that the AO had fully applied his mind to the matter. Re-opening the assessment under Section 147 on the exact same issue is a classic case of a "mere change of opinion," which is legally impermissible.
  • The Court also upheld the petitioner's second contention, ruling that an internal audit party has no legal jurisdiction to offer commentary or interpretations on points of law, such as the statutory interpretation of Section 10B.
  • The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned re-opening notice issued under Section 148 along with the order rejecting the petitioner's objections.

 Important Clarifications & Related Case Law

  • No Re-opening on Change of Opinion: If an Assessing Officer raises a query on an issue during regular scrutiny, receives an explanation, and passes the assessment order, the revenue cannot invoke Section 147 to re-open the assessment on a different interpretation of the same facts.
  • Audit Party Scope Limitations: The judgment reinforces the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (119 ITR 996 (SC)). An audit party can only point to factual errors or omissions; it cannot provide legal interpretations of statutory provisions to create "reason to believe" that income escaped assessment.

Sections Involved

  • Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Special provisions in respect of newly established 100% export-oriented undertakings)
  • Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income escaping assessment)
  • Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment)

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2013:DHC:347-DB/BDA22012013CW138382009.pdf

 Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.