2011 (8) TMI 314 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of the assessment - It is not necessary that the assessment should have been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act before it could be reopened. - Explanation 2(b) to section 147 specifically provides the cases where the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has understated the income in the return of income. The word noticed used in Explanation 2(b) of section 147 of the Incometax Act is vital and significant in the sense that there should be some basis upon which the belief can be built by the Assessing Officer. - in the relevant year, there was loss to assessee and the expenses for business were claimed by the assessee which were earlier allowed by the AO. There was no other material for the AO for reopening of the assessment and found that the reopening of the assessment on the same material - Reopening of assessee is unjustified.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Sufficiency of material for reassessment.
3. Validity of initiating reassessment proceedings.
4. Justification for reopening the assessment.
5. Existence of business activities and income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the second appeal by the assessee, finding insufficient material for the reopening of assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)-1 Bhopal had found sufficient material for reassessment, contrary to the Tribunal's decision.

2. The Tribunal considered the objection raised by the assessee regarding the lack of sufficient reasons for reassessment. The AO had initially found points for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, leading to the direction of issuing a notice under Section 148. Despite the assessee's objections, the assessment was reopened, resulting in an enhanced income for the assessee. The CIT(A)-I upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, stating that there was a prima facie case for issuing the notice under Section 148, indicating that the AO had validly initiated the reassessment proceedings.

3. However, the Tribunal, in its order, analyzed the facts and material available on record. It found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were not relevant, as there was no concrete evidence to suggest a cessation of business activities by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO had not disputed the genuineness of the business expenditures claimed by the assessee, indicating a continuation of business activities without any break. The Tribunal concluded that there was no material or basis for the AO to reopen the assessment, as the reasons provided were incorrect and lacked a valid foundation.

4. The Tribunal also discussed the legal aspects, noting that the Assessing Officer should have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment before initiating proceedings under Section 147. It emphasized the significance of having a basis or material to support the AO's belief, which was lacking in this case. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the information contained in the return was sufficient for the AO to form a belief, emphasizing the necessity of concrete material to support such actions.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no fresh material available before the AO for reopening the assessment. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order, dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. It was concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no order as to costs.