2016 (2) TMI 971 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - addition to income - Held that - The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants 2012 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In sum, if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act, resort cannot be had to Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act to make an addition on any other issue not included in the reasons to believe for reopening the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in re-filing application
2. Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act
3. Addition to income based on reasons to believe
4. Sustainability of reassessment order
5. Interpretation of Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act

Delay in re-filing application:
The High Court condoned a delay of 215 days in re-filing the application, as per CM No. 3025 of 2016.

Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04. The notice was based on accommodation entries totaling a specific amount, but the reassessment proceedings resulted in an addition of a different sum representing unsecured loans. The Tribunal found the reassessment order unsustainable as it did not align with the reasons to believe recorded for reopening the assessment. The court cited precedents to support the principle that if no addition aligns with the reasons for reopening, Explanation 3 to section 147 cannot be used to add on other issues. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

Addition to income based on reasons to believe:
The Assessing Officer initially referred to accommodation entries totaling a specific amount as the basis for reopening the assessment. However, during the reassessment proceedings, a different sum representing unsecured loans was added to the income of the assessee. This addition was challenged by the assessee, and the Tribunal found it unsustainable as it was not part of the original reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer.

Sustainability of reassessment order:
The reassessment order sought to add a sum to the assessee's income that was different from the amount mentioned in the reasons to believe for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal held that this addition was not legally sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.

Interpretation of Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act:
The court referred to previous decisions to establish that if no addition aligns with the reasons for reopening the assessment, Explanation 3 to section 147 cannot be utilized to make additions on other issues. This principle was applied to the case at hand, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the case comprehensively, outlining the legal reasoning and outcomes for each aspect of the dispute.