9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1109 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - no proper reasons recorded - information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation)-I New Delhi - non independent application of mind by AO - Held that - We are of the view that AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation)-I New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.- Decided in favor of the Assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment made under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Treatment of Short Term Capital Gain as income from other sources. 3. Addition made based on the presumption of accommodation entry. 4. Charge of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the legality of the assessment made under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 147/148 were not applicable to their case, rendering the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order unlawful. The assessee's counsel supported this argument by presenting various case laws and documents, including the reasons recorded for reopening the case. It was contended that the reasons were vague, lacked tangible material, and were based solely on information from the Investigation Wing without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal, upon reviewing the reasons recorded for reopening the case, found that the AO had not applied his mind independently and that the reasons were based on vague and non-specific information. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have a bona fide belief based on tangible material to reopen an assessment. Citing judgments from the Delhi High Court in the cases of Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and quashed the reassessment proceedings. 2. Treatment of Short Term Capital Gain as Income from Other Sources: The assessee contested the AO's decision to treat the Short Term Capital Gain as income from other sources. The AO had determined that the gains shown by the assessee were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings on the legal ground, this issue was not addressed further in the judgment. 3. Addition Based on Presumption of Accommodation Entry: The AO had added certain amounts to the assessee's income based on the presumption that the assessee had taken accommodation entries. The assessee argued that this addition was made without confronting them with the documentary evidence and statements relied upon by the AO. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into this issue as the reassessment proceedings themselves were quashed. 4. Charge of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee also challenged the charge of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. This issue was similarly not addressed in detail by the Tribunal due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the AO had not applied his mind independently and that the reasons for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked tangible material. Consequently, the other issues raised by the assessee were not addressed in detail.
|
