Reassessment for Excess S. 80HHC Deduction Claim Upheld: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against a textile exporter, ruling that reopening of assessment on account of excessive deduction claimed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be termed as a mere “change of opinion” when the original assessment order was completely silent on the issue. The bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2004–05, affirming concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The bench answered the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 for reopening the assessment was legally justified. The appellant/assessee had originally filed its return of income claiming deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of export profits. The return was subjected to scrutiny and an assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on December 29, 2006. However, the assessment order did not contain any discussion or reference to the computation or allowability of the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. Subsequently, on March 31, 2009, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 proposing reassessment on the ground that excessive deduction under Section 80HHC had been allowed. According to the recorded reasons, the assessee had omitted a crucial component of the statutory formula—export turnover to total turnover multiplied by adjusted profits—resulting in an excess claim of ₹17.33 lakh. The assessee contended that the reopening was impermissible as it was based solely on a change of opinion, arguing that the deduction had already been considered during the original scrutiny assessment. This contention was rejected by the first appellate authority in January 2012, which upheld the jurisdictional validity of reassessment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the assessee’s appeal, leading to the present proceedings before the High Court. Before the High Court, the assessee relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in TechSpan India Pvt. Ltd., to argue that reassessment without new tangible material was invalid. The Revenue, however, maintained that there was no application of mind on the Section 80HHC claim at the original stage and that Explanation (2) to Section 147 expressly permitted reopening where excessive relief had been granted. The Bench noted that while a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) ordinarily carries a presumption of due application of mind, such presumption is rebuttable. In the present case, the assessment order was “wholly silent” on the Section 80HHC claim, with no indication of any queries raised, replies received, or discussion undertaken. There was also no reference to notices under Sections 143(2) or 142(1) calling for details on the deduction. In these circumstances, the Court held that Explanation (2)(c) to Section 147 squarely applied, as excessive relief had been granted. The absence of any demonstrated formation of opinion at the original assessment stage meant that the reassessment could not be characterised as a change of opinion. The precedents cited by the assessee were distinguished on facts, as those cases involved clear evidence of prior examination and discussion of the disputed issues. Concluding that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and sustained, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the lower authorities. The substantial question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, with no order as to costs. Case Details Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT Case No.: TCA No. 394 of 2012 Date: 11-12-2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Athiban Vijay.A.K. Counsel For Respondent: V.Mahalingam Click Here To Read Order Read More: GST Demand of Rs. 10.90 Lakh Quashed; Madras HC Orders Fresh Assessment After 50% Pre-Deposit

Reassessment for Excess S. 80HHC Deduction Claim Upheld: Madras High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

License Fee, Technical Assistance Charges Not Includible In Customs Value Unless They Are a Condition of Sale: CESTAT

Investment in Mutual Funds Not ‘Trading’, No CENVAT Credit Reversal Required for Redemption of Units: CESTAT

More like this

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

License Fee, Technical Assistance Charges Not Includible In Customs Value Unless They Are a Condition of Sale: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories