2014 (12) TMI 1182 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - addition on account of share premium and share application money was made u/s 68 - Held that - Sufficiency of evidence or material for forming the belief is not open to scrutiny but the existence of belief is must for a valid exercise of power. If it is impossible for any prudent person to form a belief on the basis of material or evidence that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and reason which have been recorded would not lead to a prudent person to form an opinion that the income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 then the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147/148 is contrary to the powers permitted under the said provisions of Act. In the case in hand, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not indicate even a remote nexus between the application money received by the assessee with the alleged accommodation entries provided by Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya or the alleged beneficiary of the accommodation entries. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the reopening in these cases are not valid and consequently the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable opportunity of being heard.
2. Legality of reopening assessment on a non-existent entity.
3. Validity of reopening the assessment.
4. Reopening of assessment being barred by limitation.
5. Assessment of income at a higher amount than returned.
6. Addition of unexplained share application money under Section 68.
7. Bogus share applications based on statements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Legality of Reopening Assessment on a Non-Existent Entity:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The original return was processed under Section 143(1). The assessment was reopened based on a search action under Section 132 in the case of an individual who admitted to providing accommodation entries in the form of gifts, loans, and share application money. The Assessing Officer (AO) believed that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment due to these accommodation entries. However, the assessee argued that there was no tangible material or information linking them to these accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on assumptions without any tangible material, making the reopening invalid.

4. Reopening of Assessment Being Barred by Limitation:
The assessee contended that the reopening was after four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no failure on their part to disclose all material facts. The Tribunal found that the AO did not have any material or information to believe that the income had escaped assessment, making the reopening invalid.

5. Assessment of Income at a Higher Amount Than Returned:
The AO assessed the income at Rs. 19,57,600 against the returned income of Rs. 87,602. This was based on the belief that the share application money received was bogus. However, since the reopening itself was found invalid, this assessment was also quashed.

6. Addition of Unexplained Share Application Money Under Section 68:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 18,70,000 under Section 68, believing it to be unexplained share application money. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons were based on assumptions without any tangible material, making the addition invalid.

7. Bogus Share Applications Based on Statements:
The AO held that all share applications were bogus based on the statement of an individual who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that there was no tangible material linking the assessee to these accommodation entries, making the reopening and subsequent additions invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessments as invalid due to the lack of tangible material or information linking the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries. Consequently, the other grounds raised in the appeals became infructuous. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.