2015 (5) TMI 1087 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - notice sent by other ACIT - Held that - When the original assessment was completed by CIT(A), Surat and within a period of three months from the original assessment order, notice under Section 148 was issued by another AO ACIT, Circle 6, Surat without having reassignment of the case or assuming legal jurisdiction over the case of AY 2004-05 and considering the fact that copy of reasons for reopening of the case has only been given to the assessee on 27.12.2007 and immediately thereafter on the very next day i.e. 28.12.2007 assessment came to be completed, learned CIT(A) had rightly held the assessment illegal and unlawful. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal holding the assessment/ reassessment proceedings illegal and unlawful. In view of the above, when the assessment / reassessment itself are found to be illegal and unlawful, the validity addition made by the AO is not further required to be gone into. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of reassessment proceedings.
2. Addition of income from undisclosed sources.
3. Merits of the assessment order.
4. Reopening of assessment proceedings.

Legality and validity of reassessment proceedings:
The appellant challenged the legality and validity of the reassessment proceedings, arguing that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and unlawful. The CIT(A) extensively analyzed the facts and found that the AO had acted without jurisdiction as the original assessment had been completed by a different officer. The CIT(A) observed that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction and proper procedure. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, emphasizing that the AO had issued the notice for reassessment without proper jurisdiction or assignment of the case. The CIT(A) rightly concluded that the reassessment was illegal and unlawful, a decision upheld by the Tribunal.

Addition of income from undisclosed sources:
The AO had made an addition to the appellant's income on account of non-genuine purchase expenses from a specific concern. However, the CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the AO had not followed due process and that the reassessment itself was invalid. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that since the reassessment was deemed illegal and unlawful, there was no need to delve into the validity of the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous court decision was deemed irrelevant in light of the reassessment being declared illegal.

Merits of the assessment order:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It was argued that the purchases from the concerned party were dubious and not genuine, justifying the AO's addition to the income. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the reassessment proceedings being declared illegal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the legality of the reassessment process took precedence over the merits of the assessment order.

Reopening of assessment proceedings:
The appellant also challenged the Tribunal's decision to confirm the CIT(A)'s ruling on the illegality of the reassessment proceedings. It was argued that the reassessment was based on information received by the AO and that the Tribunal erred in quashing the reassessment order. However, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the reassessment to be invalid due to procedural irregularities and lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the legality of the reassessment process rendered any further discussion on the merits of the assessment unnecessary.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose in the case. The Court affirmed the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, both of which held the reassessment proceedings to be illegal and invalid. Consequently, the Court did not address the merits of the assessment order, as the legality of the reassessment process took precedence in the judgment.