2014 (12) TMI 51 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w. section 148 Non-application of mind by AO - lack of tangible material/reasonable cause and justification - Held that - In SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 7(3) 2010 (10) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT it has been rightly held that the only information received by the AO was that M/s Aayushi Stock Brokers (P) Limited is found to be providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share transactions, bogus share capital etc. - the detail given is only with regard to name of the bank, ledger account number and amount - even the nature of transactions is not given, much less to establish that the above transactions are in the nature of accommodation entries - the assessee has only sold the shares through M/s Aayushi Stock Brokers (P) Limited and the sale proceed has duly been considered while computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year - the notice issued u/s 148 was not valid and is to be set aside Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Lack of tangible material, reasonable cause, and justification for reopening.
3. Absence of nexus between information and inference drawn.
4. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).
5. Clarity on the nature of the transaction in the reasons recorded.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the validity of reopening the assessment under sections 147 and 148. The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was vague and did not meet legal standards. The AO recorded reasons based on stale information and issued the notice belatedly, making it difficult for the assessee to comply. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO were based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind, making the reopening invalid. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, where it was held that reassessment proceedings initiated on vague information without reference to any document or statement are invalid.

2. Lack of Tangible Material, Reasonable Cause, and Justification for Reopening:
The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide tangible material or reasonable cause for reopening the assessment. The AO's reasons were based on vague and sketchy information, lacking clarity on the nature of the transaction. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have a reasonable belief based on tangible material that income has escaped assessment, which was not demonstrated in this case.

3. Absence of Nexus Between Information and Inference Drawn:
The Tribunal observed that there was no nexus between the information received from the Investigation Wing and the tentative inference drawn by the AO. The reasons recorded did not establish a connection between the alleged information and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal cited the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the absence of a nexus or link between the information and the belief of income escapement invalidates the reassessment proceedings.

4. Non-application of Mind by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The Tribunal found that the AO did not independently apply his mind to the information received. The reasons recorded were merely a reproduction of details from the Investigation Wing without any independent examination by the AO. The Tribunal referenced the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the formation of belief must be based on independent application of mind by the AO, which was lacking in this case.

5. Clarity on the Nature of the Transaction in the Reasons Recorded:
The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the AO lacked clarity on the nature of the transaction. The AO did not provide minimal discussion on how he believed that the amount was income escaping assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons must clearly state the nature of the transaction and the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment, which was not done in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the reassessment order passed in pursuance thereof, holding that the reasons recorded did not satisfy the requirements of section 147. The Tribunal allowed the legal objections raised by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening and issuance of notice under sections 147 and 148. Consequently, other grounds on merits did not survive for adjudication. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →