9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 121 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - credit balance in the account of two parties - Held that - AO reproduced the observation of the CIT(A) and thereafter has recorded that there is a credit balance in the account of Bansal Polyvin (P) Ltd.; and M/s Ek Onkar Foundry, amounting to ₹ 5,40,175/-, which was created for the first time during the FY 2001-02 relevant to AY 2002-03. Thereafter, he recorded the finding that- Therefore, on the basis of above referred observations made, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of ₹ 5,40,175/- had escaped assessment . Thus, it is evident that the assessment had been reopened on the basis of observations of the ld. CIT(A) and the claim of the ld. DR that the AO had applied his mind independently, is not correct. The AO has simply found that there is credit balance in the account of two parties during the financial year, relevant to AY 2002-03. The credit balance itself cannot be a ground to arrive at the conclusion of escapement of income. In view of above, in our opinion, the decision of M/s Tejaskiran Pharmachem Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 985 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) and M.B. Traders (2009 (7) TMI 1097 - ITAT NAGPUR ) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the impugned reopening of assessment was not valid. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Challenging the legality and jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 and reassessment order, independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, validity of notice u/s 148, relevance of observations/directions by CIT(A) in reopening assessment, applicability of judgments in similar cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Jurisdiction of Notice u/s 148: The appellant contested the legality of the notice u/s 148 and the subsequent reassessment order for A.Y. 2002-03, alleging it was illegal, bad in law, and lacked jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the AO reopened the case merely based on the CIT(A)'s direction for A.Y. 2003-04 without an independent application of mind, rendering the reopening bad in law. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant emphasized the necessity of a live link between the material and belief for reopening assessments. 2. Independent Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer: The appellant's counsel highlighted the importance of the Assessing Officer applying an independent mind before reopening assessments. The appellant relied on judgments stating that the AO must not solely act on the direction or observation of higher authorities but must be satisfied independently about income escapement. The tribunal emphasized that the AO cannot reopen assessments solely based on CIT(A)'s directions without recording his own satisfaction regarding income escapement. 3. Validity of Notice u/s 148 and CIT(A)'s Observations: The tribunal scrutinized the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which reproduced the CIT(A)'s observations. It was noted that the AO relied on the CIT(A)'s observations without demonstrating independent analysis. The tribunal found that the credit balance in the accounts of certain parties was insufficient to establish income escapement. Relying on precedents, the tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply an independent mind rendered the reopening invalid. 4. Applicability of Judgments in Similar Cases: The tribunal referenced judgments from the Bombay High Court, ITAT Nagpur Bench, and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench to support its decision. These judgments emphasized the necessity for the AO to independently assess income escapement before reopening assessments. The tribunal concluded that the observations and directions of the CIT(A) cannot serve as the sole basis for reopening assessments without the AO's independent satisfaction. 5. Outcome: Considering the lack of independent application of mind by the AO in reopening the assessment, the tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, quashing the notice u/s 148 and the subsequent assessment order. The tribunal's decision was based on the principle that reopening assessments must be grounded in the AO's independent assessment of income escapement rather than solely relying on higher authorities' directions or observations.
|
