2012 (4) TMI 613 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - Reopening in this case is bad in law. The reasons recorded in the present case are also scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement except mentioned of supplementary list of beneficiaries. This can not be regarded as material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes escapement of income. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis of the information. Assessing Officer has accepted the information in a mechanical manner. Assessing Officer did not verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer has not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and therefore the Assessing Officer s action is not in accordance with law

Issues Involved:
1. Principles of Natural Justice
2. Validity of Action under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961
3. Justification of Action under Sections 147/148 based on Other Material
4. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on Account of Gift from Shri Kesho Ram Gupta
5. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on Account of Gift from Shri Manish Kumar Aggarwal
6. Genuineness of the Gifts Received

Detailed Analysis:

1. Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 because the written submissions filed before him were not considered. However, the tribunal did not specifically address this issue in their detailed analysis, focusing instead on the validity of the reassessment process.

2. Validity of Action under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147, arguing that there was no sufficient reason for such action. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reassessment, stating that the Assessing Officer had specific and direct information regarding bogus entries and had recorded detailed reasons for the belief of income concealment. The tribunal, however, found that the reasons recorded were vague and did not satisfy the requirements of section 147. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not independently verify the information received but accepted it mechanically. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the tribunal held that the reasons recorded were insufficient to warrant reopening the case, thus deeming the reassessment invalid.

3. Justification of Action under Sections 147/148 based on Other Material:
The appellant argued that the justification for the action under sections 147/148 was not based on the reasons recorded but on other material. The tribunal's analysis indicated that the reasons recorded were vague and lacked specific details such as names, addresses, and dates, which are necessary to establish a belief that income had escaped assessment. The tribunal concluded that the action was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information received.

4. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on Account of Gift from Shri Kesho Ram Gupta:
The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 5,00,000 as income from undisclosed sources, questioning the genuineness of the gift received from Shri Kesho Ram Gupta. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition. However, since the tribunal found the reassessment itself to be invalid, they did not adjudicate this issue further, rendering it academic in nature.

5. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on Account of Gift from Shri Manish Kumar Aggarwal:
Similarly, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 5,00,000 received as a gift from Shri Manish Kumar Aggarwal as income from undisclosed sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also confirmed this addition. As with the previous issue, the tribunal did not further adjudicate this matter due to the invalidation of the reassessment.

6. Genuineness of the Gifts Received:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the gifts received were not genuine. The tribunal, however, focused on the procedural validity of the reassessment and did not delve into the genuineness of the gifts due to the reassessment being deemed invalid.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the reassessment was invalid due to the insufficiency and vagueness of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Consequently, they set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and did not adjudicate the other issues, as they became academic in nature. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →