9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 18 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that - According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assesee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. - See GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court and Hotel Signatures Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Reopening u/s 148 2. Merits of the Case 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening u/s 148: The Assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 148, arguing that it was done in contravention of jurisdictional conditions stipulated under Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee contended that the reasons for reopening were not communicated before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, which goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the entire proceedings. The Assessee emphasized that the reasons provided did not amount to reasonable belief and demonstrated a lack of application of mind and tangible material. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's argument, noting that the Assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut and confute the reopening and reasons recorded, as per the dictum of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19. The Tribunal highlighted that the sine qua non for issuance of a notice under Section 148 is the recording of reasons by the AO and furnishing a copy thereof to the Assessee when asked. The Tribunal also referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2011] 338 ITR 0051, which held that reassessment proceedings initiated without proper application of mind to the information received are invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings. 2. Merits of the Case: The Assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,000 made on the basis of conjectures, surmises, suspicion, and hearsay, whereas evidence on record adequately proved the Assessee's case. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case, as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on legal grounds, rendering the issue academic. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 7,49,000 was made in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity was provided to explain the case. The Tribunal found that the failure to communicate the reasons for reopening and to provide an opportunity to rebut the same constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. This further supported the decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings due to the invalidity of the reopening under Section 148 and the violation of principles of natural justice. The other issues were not addressed as they became academic following the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 28/9/2015.
|
