2014 (12) TMI 764 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment held as invalid u/s 147 by Tribunal - Investment reflected in the books of accounts of M/s Ishwar Dass Sahni & Brothers Ltd. or not Held that - The reason for issuing notice u/s 148 was not as the revenue is contending - queries with regard to investment were raised by the AO and reply and submissions were made by the assessee - the Tribunal has also recorded that the records of the AO were incomplete and some papers were missing - the assessee had disclosed the factum of investment of ₹ 1,66,23,750/- The finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee had made this disclosure at the time of original assessment by responding to question asked from assessee the issue is a factual matter and there is no need to interfere in the order of the Tribunal Decided against revenue.

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional preconditions under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act not satisfied.
2. Disclosure of material facts by the assessee during original assessment proceedings.
3. Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice under Section 148.
4. Reassessment based on unexplained investment and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
5. Contradiction between reasons recorded and actual disclosures made by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The High Court dealt with an appeal by the Revenue regarding reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2004-05 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee, an individual, on the grounds that the jurisdictional preconditions specified in Section 147 were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made full and true disclosure of material facts regarding an investment in the share capital of a company during the original assessment proceedings.

2. The Revenue argued that the investment was not reflected in the books of the company, but the High Court noted that this was not the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing the notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer's reasons for issuing the notice were based on the belief that the assessee had not fully disclosed the investment in their books, which warranted invoking Section 69 of the Act.

3. The High Court observed that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment did not align with the actual disclosures made by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed disclosed the investment during the original assessment by responding to specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer. The High Court emphasized that the reasons to believe were factually incorrect and contrary to the record, as they ignored the disclosures made by the assessee.

4. Considering the factual discrepancies and the failure of the Revenue to establish non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. The Court concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order, and therefore, dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the jurisdictional preconditions, disclosure of material facts, reasons for reassessment, and the discrepancies between the reasons recorded and the actual disclosures made by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →