2015 (6) TMI 641 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non-furnishing of reasons recorded by the AO - Held that - No copy of the reasons recorded were furnished to the assessee, which is necessary before the assessment is completed. We hold that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Limited (2012 (8) TMI 495 - ITAT MUMBAI ) and the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (2011 (7) TMI 715 - Bombay High Court ), the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2010 is bad in law as the AO had not furnished copy of the reasons recorded despite specific request made by the assessee before he completed the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of alleged non-genuine purchases.
2. Reliance on retracted statements of partners.
3. Validity of reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without providing reasons for reopening.
4. Legality of the order passed under section 250 confirming the reassessment order.
5. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on Account of Alleged Non-Genuine Purchases:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 47,57,658/- made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of alleged non-genuine purchases from a specific company. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the decision on the validity of the reassessment.

2. Reliance on Retracted Statements of Partners:
The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying upon the statements of the partners, which were later retracted. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately as the reassessment was quashed.

3. Validity of Reassessment Under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 Without Providing Reasons for Reopening:
The primary issue addressed was the validity of the reassessment. The assessee argued that the reassessment was invalid as the reasons for reopening were not provided before the reassessment order was made. The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested the reasons for reopening via a letter dated 28-4-2010, but the Assessing Officer (AO) did not furnish these reasons before completing the reassessment.

The Tribunal referenced its own decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2008-09, where the reassessment was quashed due to similar circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT, which supported the requirement for the AO to furnish reasons for reopening.

The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of reasons for reopening is a violation of natural justice and renders the reassessment invalid. Therefore, the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was quashed.

4. Legality of the Order Passed Under Section 250 Confirming the Reassessment Order:
Given that the reassessment order was quashed, the Tribunal did not need to separately address the legality of the order passed under section 250 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
Since the reassessment was quashed, the issue of charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D became infructuous and was not adjudicated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 due to the AO's failure to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's specific request. Consequently, other issues raised in the appeal became moot and were not adjudicated. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →