2010 (2) TMI 931 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act - additions on the merits on account of bogus purchases, cash credit, part gross profit addition and other disallowances of the expenditure - Assessing Officer is, however, directed to reopen the assessments for the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 under section 147 Held that - reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not find facts and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for escapement of income. In the absence of the fulfilment of the requirements of section 147 of the Income-tax Act for initiation of the reassessment proceedings in the above cases, since the reopening of the assessments would have been done by recording the reasons only by the Assessing Officer, therefore, there was no reason for the assessee to have challenged the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the appellate order, orders of the authorities below set aside and quash the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, assessee are allowed and both Departmental appeals are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Additions on account of bogus purchases, cash credit, part gross profit addition, and other disallowances of expenditure.
3. Deletion of additions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The primary issue in the appeals was the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The reassessment was directed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in a block assessment order dated December 11, 2003, which instructed the Assessing Officer to investigate the genuineness of the purchases shown in these years.

The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments did not satisfy the conditions of section 147. The Assessing Officer merely acted on the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without independently recording reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. V. Jayaraman, which emphasized that the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and these reasons must be recorded in writing.

The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessments were insufficient and did not fulfill the statutory requirements of section 147. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for all the assessment years in question.

2. Additions on Account of Bogus Purchases, Cash Credit, Part Gross Profit Addition, and Other Disallowances of Expenditure:
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had made various additions on account of bogus purchases, cash credits, disallowances of expenditure, etc., in the reassessment orders. However, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, these additions were rendered null and void.

3. Deletion of Additions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The Revenue had challenged the deletion of additions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who had reduced the additions by applying a gross profit rate of 20 percent. However, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to address the merits of these deletions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for all the assessment years in question. As a result, all the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and both Departmental appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal did not address the remaining grounds on the merits, as they were rendered academic due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →