2015 (8) TMI 1347 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that - In the present case before us we find that the Assessing Officer did not bother himself to verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the information in a mechanical manner. What sort of enquiry or verification of information received by him from the Investigation Wing of the Department was made by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 and the result of such enquiry has not been made available even on the request of the assessee to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 08.03.2013. We thus find substance in the contention of the assessee that in absence of any reference to any corroborative material in the possession of the Assessing Officer leading him to believe that the information received was based on some relevant material and the income has escaped assessment the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 in a mechanical manner on the basis of vague information from the investigation wing of the department. The assessee thus succeeds on this contention as well to arrive at a conclusion that notice issued u/s 148 was not valid. - Decided in favour of assessee Notice against non existent company - reopening - Held that - Notice issued under sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 on a non-existent assessee was invalid and the assessment made in furtherance thereto inconsequence was invalid and void. The assessment in absence of issuance of mandatory notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act was also void ab-initio - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
3. Requirement of issuing notice under Section 143(2).
4. Addition of income based on alleged accommodation entries.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Admission of additional documents and grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not obtain the necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) as required under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had concluded that the approval was obtained from the Additional CIT, which was not rebutted by the revenue. The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction as the required approval from the CIT was not obtained, making the assessment void ab initio.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The tribunal found that the AO issued the notice based on borrowed satisfaction from the ACIT without independent verification. The reasons recorded by the AO were deemed mechanical and based on vague information from the Investigation Wing. The tribunal emphasized that the AO must apply his own mind to the information and verify its correctness before issuing a notice under Section 148. The tribunal held that the notice was issued without proper jurisdiction and was thus invalid.

3. Requirement of Issuing Notice Under Section 143(2):
The tribunal observed that the reassessment order under Section 147/143(3) was invalid as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, which is mandatory for framing a valid assessment. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Hotel Bluemoon, which mandates the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) for a valid assessment under Section 143(3). The absence of such notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.

4. Addition of Income Based on Alleged Accommodation Entries:
The tribunal noted that the AO made an addition of Rs. 45 lakhs based on alleged accommodation entries. The assessee contended that the information received from the Investigation Wing was vague and lacked corroborative material. The tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the AO issued the notice based on vague information without any corroborative evidence. The tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the notice itself was invalid.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee raised the issue of violation of principles of natural justice, arguing that the AO did not provide the statement of Mr. S.K. Gupta or other documents used against the assessee. The tribunal noted that the AO did not provide the requested information, which suggested that the AO did not have any corroborative evidence. The tribunal held that the AO's actions violated the principles of natural justice.

6. Admission of Additional Documents and Grounds:
The tribunal allowed the admission of additional grounds raised by the assessee, noting that the issues were legal in nature and went to the root of the matter. The tribunal held that the adjudication of these issues did not require consideration of fresh material outside the record.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper jurisdiction and failure to issue notice under Section 143(2). The tribunal quashed the assessments framed in furtherance of the invalid notices and held that the additions made were not justified. The tribunal also found that the AO's actions violated the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.