2014 (7) TMI 291 - AT - Income Tax

Re-opening of assessment u/s 148 - Proper reason to believe the escapement of income - non-verification of the suspicious information - Whether the reasons as recorded constitute a tangible and correct and are indicative escapement of income in material terms Held that - In Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt. VI, Calcutta, And Others Versus Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court it has been held that the powers of the ITO to reopen assessment, though wide, yet are not plenary - The words of the statute are reason to believe' and not reason to suspect' - The reopening of an assessment is a serious matter and it should be ensured that these powers are used by the AO properly - the reason to suspect cannot be a basis for reason to believe also in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it has been held that for assessing officer to reopen the assessment there should be tangible material to come to the conclusion and should have a live link with the formation of belief to come to a conclusion that there is escapement of income. When assessing officer has recorded in the reasons that all the cash transactions are recorded in the assessee's books of a/cs, entire edifies of the veracity of ED information fails. Besides, in the absence of any information about the non plausible explanation from ED point of view this vague information on its own also cannot be a basis to form a reasoned belief. Thus, in our considered opinion the assessing officer has blindly relied on the suspicion intimated by ED. Assessing officer on one hand gave a reason that transactions are recorded, on the other hand without making any effort recorded reason to believe to reopen the assessment of the assessee. - the reason to believe made by assessing officer are self contradictory and based only on suspicion. - the reason to believe as formed by AO are not in terms as contemplated by sec. 147 - AO did not have valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reassessment proceedings under Section 148.
2. Addition of Rs. 46,38,800/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits.
3. Partial addition of Rs. 2,73,887/- for unverified expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148:

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings under Section 148, arguing that the requisite conditions for reopening the assessment were not fulfilled. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(1) at an income of Rs. 36,02,310/-. The reassessment was initiated based on information from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which indicated that the assessee had not disclosed certain cash transactions in its books of accounts. The assessee contended that all cash transactions were recorded in the books and that the ED's information was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) were self-contradictory, as the AO acknowledged that the transactions were recorded in the books but simultaneously claimed they were not disclosed. The Tribunal held that the information from the ED was vague and unreliable, and the AO did not verify the information from the assessee's records before forming a belief of income escaping assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, rendering the reopening of the assessment invalid and quashing it as bad in law.

2. Addition of Rs. 46,38,800/- Under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash Deposits:

The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 46,38,800/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits, as the assessee could not produce confirmations and PAN numbers for certain parties. The assessee argued that the amounts received were from sundry debtors against the booking of tickets, and the cash deposits were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation for most of the cash deposits but retained the addition for the amounts received from four travel agents due to the lack of confirmations and PAN numbers. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of confirmations containing PAN numbers for these parties and concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition retained by the CIT(A).

3. Partial Addition of Rs. 2,73,887/- for Unverified Expenditure:

The AO had made an ad hoc disallowance of 15% of various expenses, amounting to Rs. 36,51,832/-, on the grounds that the expenses were not properly vouched and verifiable. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 7.5%, giving a relief of Rs. 2,73,887/-. The assessee contended that the disallowance was arbitrary and that the expenses were duly recorded and audited. Given the Tribunal's decision to quash the reopening of the assessment, it did not need to address the merits of the case, including the partial addition for unverified expenditure.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment as bad in law, holding that the AO did not have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of proper verification and reasonable belief in forming the basis for reassessment proceedings under Section 148.