2012 (12) TMI 870 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - difference in sale price as per the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1999 & sale deed dated 01.09.2002 - undisclosed payment of Rs. 65.80 lacs to the sellers - escaped assessment for the AY 2000-01 - Held that - There can be no escape in the light of the interpretation of Section 147 that there existed sufficient reasons for the AO to believe that the undisclosed income in the hands of the appellant-assessees escaped assessment in the year 2000-01. The agreement to sell dated 14.11.1999 was admittedly signed by both of them. The Notary Public also supported the cause of Revenue regarding execution of the said agreement. JD Gupta was cross-examined by the assessees at length but he withstood the test of credibility who was blamed to have got the agreement to sell signed by the assessees without letting them see the contents of the agreement. The agreement to sell dated 14.11.1999 referred to four demand drafts which were exactly the same as mentioned in the sale deed dated 13.09.2002. These very demand drafts appeared in the subsequent agreement to sell dated 03.02.2000 also. In the light of this overwhelming material brought on record the AO was fully justified in disbelieving the subsequent agreement dated 03.02.2000. Similarly the far-fetched plea taken by the assessees that their signatures on the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1999 were obtained without disclosing its contents to them cannot be accepted. The decisions relied upon by the appellants have no bearing on the point in issue - assessee s plea regarding second agreement to sell dated 03.02.2000 or the agreed sale consideration amounting to Rs. 16 lacs only was disbelieved concluding that the assessees had made an undisclosed payment of Rs. 65.80 lacs to the sellers and both of them had invested Rs. 43, 86, 667/- out of their undisclosed income - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on alleged escaped income for the Assessment Year 2000-01.
2. Validity of reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment.
3. Interpretation of the phrase "reason to believe" under Section 147.
4. Application of legal precedents in determining the jurisdiction for reassessment of escaped income.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the appeals filed by a husband and wife against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the reopening of their assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The assessees were alleged to have made undisclosed payments in a property transaction, leading to escaped assessment. The appeals were interconnected as the facts overlapped, involving business income, Long Term Capital Gains, and agricultural income declared in their separate returns.

2. The assessees contended that the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on mere suspicion without proper verification of the information received. They argued that the Revenue failed to prove that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was less than what was agreed upon. The assessees emphasized that no evidence supported the alleged undisclosed payment, and they challenged the jurisdiction of the AO under Section 147 of the Act.

3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the phrase "reason to believe" under Section 147 of the Act. It highlights that the AO must have an honest and reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion. The court emphasized that the belief must be held in good faith and subject to judicial review. The legal precedent cited underscores the distinction between 'reason to believe' and 'reason to suspect,' with the former requiring a genuine and rational basis for the belief.

4. The judgment extensively discusses the legal framework governing the reassessment of escaped income under Section 147. It elucidates the evolution of the law pre and post-amendment, emphasizing that the AO's belief in income escapement suffices to reopen assessments. The court cited relevant case law to establish that once the AO has reasons to believe in income escapement, whether from existing records or otherwise, they are empowered to initiate reassessment proceedings. The judgment also refuted the appellants' reliance on prior decisions, emphasizing the specific circumstances and outcomes of those cases.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals, upholding the AO's jurisdiction to reassess the escaped income of the appellants for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The judgment concluded that there were sufficient grounds for the AO to believe in the undisclosed income, rejecting the appellants' contentions regarding the validity of the reassessment. The court's decision was based on the overwhelming evidence presented, including the agreements, demand drafts, and testimonies, supporting the AO's actions under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.