2017 (11) TMI 1641 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 - non furnishing of reasons to believe to assessee - Held that - As AO could not produce any record or document to show that a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment has been served on the assessee before the completion of the assessment on 22.12.2010, despite repeated requests by the assessee to the A.O for furnishing the same. Under these circumstances, as the ld. A.O has failed to give a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee despite application for the same, the assessment is to be held as bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act
2. Disallowance of provision for loss on derivative transactions
3. Failure to furnish reasons for reopening assessment to the assessee

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of reopening assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act
The appeal challenged the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central-I, Kolkata, regarding the validity of reopening the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant contested that there was no change of opinion of the Assessing Officer (AO) in this regard. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Departmental Representative failed to provide evidence that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished to the assessee. Citing legal precedents such as GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. ITO & Others and CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the Tribunal held that failure to provide the reasons for reopening assessment to the assessee before the completion of assessment renders the reassessment order bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was invalid, and the appeal on this issue was allowed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of provision for loss on derivative transactions
The appeal also contested the confirmation of disallowance of the provision for loss on derivative transactions amounting to a specific sum. However, the Tribunal's judgment did not delve into the details or reasoning behind this disallowance. It is evident that this issue was not the primary focus of the Tribunal's decision, and the judgment primarily revolved around the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Issue 3: Failure to furnish reasons for reopening assessment to the assessee
The crucial aspect of this judgment was the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee despite repeated requests. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of furnishing reasons to the assessee as per legal requirements and established precedents. By citing relevant case laws and considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the reassessment order was flawed due to this procedural lapse. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on this critical issue of non-compliance with the obligation to provide reasons for reopening the assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the procedural irregularity of not furnishing reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, leading to the invalidation of the reassessment order. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to legal requirements and precedents in conducting assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.