2009 (8) TMI 802 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment - Unexplained Investment - Time limitation - Search and seizure - assessee submitted in reply to question No. 61 that the aforesaid FDRs were purchased in the name of his wife Smt. Ranidevi C. Singh and FD of Rs. 5, 000 in the name of his daughter was included in the aforesaid amount - In CIT vs. DCM Ltd. Hon ble High Court found that there was no allegation in the reasons recorded by the AO that the assessee had failed to file its return or that it had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in its return nor was there any allegation by the AO that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in its return income nor even there was any allegation regarding escapement of income these circumstances Hon ble High Court upheld that findings of the Tribunal notice under s. 148 of the Act having been issued after four years the reopening the assessment was not valid - Appeals are allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Confirmation of unexplained investments and cash deposits.
3. Confirmation of unexplained cash credit.
4. Confirmation of additions under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 was valid given that it was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, allegedly violating the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no jurisdiction to issue the notice as there was no failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that all necessary details were available with the AO at the time of the initial assessment, and the reasons for reopening were based on the same material. Citing various judicial precedents, including decisions from the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid and quashed the assessment orders.

2. Confirmation of Unexplained Investments and Cash Deposits:
In ITA No. 4049/Ahd/2002, the assessee challenged the confirmation of Rs. 2,60,000 as unexplained investment and Rs. 56,200 as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the AO had added these amounts based on the seized material and the statements recorded during the search. However, given the invalidity of the notice under Section 148, these additions were rendered moot. Thus, the Tribunal did not separately adjudicate these grounds.

3. Confirmation of Unexplained Cash Credit:
The assessee also contested the addition of Rs. 78,795 as unexplained cash credit, which was the loan amount given by the wife of the assessee to a related concern. The Tribunal observed that this addition was also based on the same material that was available during the original assessment. Since the reopening itself was invalid, this ground did not survive for separate adjudication.

4. Confirmation of Additions Under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act:
In ITA No. 4050/Ahd/2002, the firm contested the confirmation of Rs. 1,02,424 under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the AO had reopened the assessment based on loose papers found during the search, which revealed unaccounted expenses. However, as the notice under Section 148 was invalid, the Tribunal did not need to adjudicate this ground separately.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders due to the invalidity of the notices issued under Section 148, as there was no failure on the part of the assessees to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments. Consequently, all other grounds raised in the appeals were dismissed as they did not survive for adjudication. Both appeals were allowed.