2015 (2) TMI 717 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - as per revenue the assessee though had enjoyed taxable income and had huge unaccounted deposits in bank account but had not chosen to file return of income so also did not place on record any material before the AO despite of several opportunities having been granted - Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer granting the assessee one more inning - Held that - The Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, has chosen not to decide any issue. It may be a different aspect that on the material available with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whether the Tribunal ought to have restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity afresh ; nevertheless the Tribunal in its view in the interest of justice has restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer and we need not comment on the finding of the Tribunal but, in our view, no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the final fact finding authority has not decided any issue. The assessee may have chosen not to file return/details before the Assessing Officer earlier but nevertheless gets a chance again to place all material on which he wishes to rely upon consequent to the order passed by the Tribunal. Both the sides get another opportunity and if the assessee fails again after adequate opportunity is being granted by the Assessing Officer then the Assessing Officer has again an opportunity to pass an order in accordance with law, which he deems appropriate. - Decided in favour of assessee by way or remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against ITAT order for assessment year 2007-08 under Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against the ITAT order dated January 27, 2014, related to the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant, despite having income from various sources, did not file an income tax return under section 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in 2010 due to non-filing of returns. The appellant did not cooperate in providing necessary details, leading to the Assessing Officer making an assessment based on available information, including long-term capital gains and unaccounted bank deposits. The total income was assessed at Rs. 3,52,29,339.

The appellant appealed to the CIT(A) and submitted additional evidence under rule 46A, including sale deeds, valuation reports, and bank statements. The CIT(A) considered the additional evidence but dismissed the appeal on May 22, 2012. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the ITAT, arguing that the addition to income was arbitrary and not properly considered. The ITAT set aside the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Revenue contended that the appellant had taxable income and unaccounted deposits but failed to file returns or provide necessary details despite multiple opportunities. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer was unjustified. The High Court noted the appellant's non-cooperative approach and failure to provide basic documents, leading to the Assessing Officer passing the order based on available information. The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision, as it did not decide any issue conclusively.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer, providing both parties with another opportunity to present their case. The High Court emphasized that if the appellant fails to provide necessary details even after the opportunity granted by the Assessing Officer, a proper order can be passed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law warranted consideration by the court.