2012 (9) TMI 393 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 - rejection of application of the assessee for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) - based on aforesaid AO formed an opinion of escapement of income - Held that - It is evident from the assessment orders that assessee has claimed exemption u/s.11(1)(a) for A.Y. 2008-09 and the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is clear that the assessee has not claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for any of the periods under consideration. AO from the communication of the CCIT regarding rejection of application of the assessee for exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) only came to the conclusion of escapement of income from assessment. Hence notice issued u/s 148 are not at all valid as there is no satisfaction of the AO himself as to the escapement of income from assessment in the hands of the assessee except receipt of said order of CCIT - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Validity of notice issued u/s.148 and reopening of assessment
- Exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiad), 10(23C)(vi), and 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice issued u/s.148 and reopening of assessment
- The appeals were filed by the assessee against separate orders of the CIT (A) for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, challenging the reopening of assessments under section 147 based on notices issued u/s.148.
- The AO reopened the assessments upon receiving communication from CCIT rejecting the assessee's application for exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The AO did not have independent satisfaction but relied on the CCIT's communication, leading to the belief that income had escaped assessment.
- The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the necessary satisfaction for reopening the assessments, as the CCIT's rejection alone cannot form the basis for escapement of income. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the notice u/s.148 and subsequent assessments were invalid and void.

Issue 2: Exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiad), 10(23C)(vi), and 11
- The assessee claimed exemption under different sections for the relevant assessment years. The AO focused on the rejection of exemption applications under section 10(23C)(vi) by CCIT as the basis for reopening assessments.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have a genuine reason to believe income has escaped assessment, not merely rely on external communications. The Tribunal found the reassessment notices invalid, rendering subsequent assessments null and void.
- As the reassessment notices were deemed invalid, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the exemption claims. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeals solely on the basis of the invalid reassessment notices.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Cuttack, in its judgment, allowed all three appeals filed by the assessee, primarily due to the invalidity of the notice issued under section 148 for reopening assessments. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to have independent satisfaction regarding income escapement and not rely solely on external communications. The Tribunal's decision rendered the subsequent assessments null and void, without delving into the merits of the exemption claims under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.