2011 (3) TMI 1026 - HC - Income Tax

Survey - Coercive statement and surrendered of Rs. 600,000 - Unexplained investment - Reassessment - The reasons demanded by the assessee were supplied to him by the Assessing Officer and his objections were also considered - Held that - As the Assessing Officer in his order has given detailed reasons including about the number of opportunities given to the assessee after reasons were supplied to him and ultimately notice was given to show cause as to why an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act may not be made in his case as he failed to comply with the notices issued to him from time to time and the date was fixed on December 20, 2006 - The assessee failed to dispute that and could not produce any other evidence to the contrary to show that investments were actually made in different years than this - in this case, no such effort was made by the assessee because no such material was produced by him - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 based on notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of adding unexplained investment in the construction of house property.
3. Justification of the notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment.
4. Non-cooperation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 based on notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upholding the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessment was reopened based on a notice issued under section 148. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed an appeal earlier, deleting an addition of Rs. 6,00,000, and observed that the Assessing Officer could verify investments made in the property. The argument was made that the assessment could not have been reopened as the construction of the property was completed before March 31, 2002. The court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 148, and the reasons for reopening were provided to the assessee.

Issue 2: Validity of adding unexplained investment in the construction of house property:
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4,07,800 as unexplained investment in the construction of a house property for the financial year 1998-99 relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. The court noted that the assessee failed to dispute this addition and did not provide evidence to the contrary. The assessment order was made under section 144 due to the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee. The court found that the arguments raised pertained to questions of fact, and since no material was produced to disprove the investment, the addition was upheld.

Issue 3: Justification of the notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment:
The notice under section 148 was issued based on observations made by the ITAT, leaving it open for the Assessing Officer to verify investments made in the property. The court found that the notice was justified, reasons were provided to the assessee, and objections were considered. However, the assessee adopted a non-cooperative attitude, leading to an ex parte assessment under section 144. The court held that the Assessing Officer had given detailed reasons for the assessment, and the limitation for making the assessment was expiring.

Issue 4: Non-cooperation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings:
The court noted the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee in the assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Officer having to make an ex parte assessment. Despite opportunities given, the assessee failed to comply with notices and did not dispute the addition of unexplained investment. The court found that the arguments raised were factual and did not raise any legal issues. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of merit.

In conclusion, the court upheld the assessment order adding the unexplained investment in the construction of the house property, finding the notice under section 148 justified, and dismissing the appeal due to the non-cooperation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings.