2015 (11) TMI 426 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - lack of verification in respect of 11 share and premium applicants to the tune of ₹ 56 lacs - Held that - As find from the case file that the Assessing Officer issued section 142(1) notice dated 25-05-2011 assessee placed on record necessary details. The CIT himself acknowledges the very fact. A perusal of the reassessment framed on 29-08-2011 states these facts. That being the case the question that arises for our consideration as to whether the present case can be treated as that of no inquiry by the Assessing Officer or not. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and specific inquiry of the Assessing Officer and equally elaborate assessee s reply, we hold that this case does not fall in the above stated category. We notice from the case file that the assessee s details forming part of discussion in reassessment led to addition of ₹ 26 lacs being made on account of bogus share application and premium. We observe in these facts that the Assessing Officer examined this issue and confirmed this addition of ₹ 26 lacs only. The hon ble Bombay high court in case of CIT vs. Garbiel India (1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY High Court) deals with a similar situation wherein the CIT revised an assessment on the ground that the same did not contain discussion in regard to a deduction claim which alleging non application of mind. Their lordship observe that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries in view of all necessary explanation. It is held that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim on being satisfied with assessee s version and the same cannot be held erroneous merely because the assessment sought to be revised did not contain an elaborate discussion. The hon ble Delhi high court in case of (.2009 (9) TMI 633 - Delhi High Court) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd has also rejected Revenue s arguments in identical facts and holds that the Assessing Officer in assessment order is not required to give detailed reasons in respect of each and every item. Their lordship draw a fine distinction between lack of inquiry; and inadequate inquiry and hold that if there was an inquiry even inadequate that would not by itself give an occasion to the Commissioner to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. We reiterate the facts of the instant case making it amply clear that the present is not a case of lack of inquiry. The CIT is of the opinion that no proper verification appears to have been made. We accept assessee s arguments accordingly and reject those of the Revenue s that the ld. CIT has merely directed the Assessing Officer to make an elaborate inquiry. Our these findings render the assessee s arguments propounding merger theory in view of the CIT(A) s order (supra) and merits to be academic. The CIT s order under challenge is accordingly reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the additions made under section 68 regarding unexplained cash credits.
3. Application of section 263 by the CIT to revise the reassessment order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:
The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from a search and seizure action conducted on M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and its related companies. The search revealed that these companies were engaged in fraudulent billing activities and providing bogus transactions. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of clients who had taken accommodation entries from these companies. Consequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148, believing that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

2. Validity of the Additions Made Under Section 68 Regarding Unexplained Cash Credits:
During the reassessment, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 26 lacs as unexplained cash credits under section 68. This amount included Rs. 11 lacs from M/s. Mihir Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15 lacs from M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., which were deemed bogus and unreliable. The assessee's appeal against this addition was dismissed by the CIT(A), and the matter was pending before the tribunal.

3. Application of Section 263 by the CIT to Revise the Reassessment Order:
The CIT invoked section 263, forming an opinion that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT identified that no proper verification was made regarding 11 other parties from whom the assessee had obtained share application money and share premium totaling Rs. 56 lacs. The CIT also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the nature and source of these credits and other transactions related to hi-seas purchases and sales, and the purchase and sale of vegetables and agricultural products.

The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments after examining all relevant facts and carrying out necessary inquiries regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The CIT's order was based on the premise that the Assessing Officer did not make any independent inquiries into these transactions during the reassessment.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued notices under section 142(1) and the assessee had provided necessary details. The reassessment order already included an addition of Rs. 26 lacs based on the Assessing Officer's inquiries. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gabriel India, which held that an assessment cannot be deemed erroneous merely because it lacks detailed discussion if the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, stating that even inadequate inquiry does not justify invoking section 263.

The Tribunal concluded that the present case did not involve a lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The CIT's opinion that no proper verification was made did not hold, as the Assessing Officer had conducted specific inquiries and the reassessment order included detailed discussions. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT's order under section 263 and allowed the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings were valid, the additions under section 68 were based on proper inquiries, and the CIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries. The order pronounced on 30-09-2015 reversed the CIT's decision to revise the reassessment order.