9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1706 - AT - Income TaxReopening u/s. 148/147 - notice u/s. 148 was issued merely at the behest of Investigation Wing - AO has not made any independent enquiry - Held that - Exactly the similar and identical to the issue involved in the present appeal and is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi Signatures Hotels (P) Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 361 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Hence, respectfully following decide the legal issue in dispute in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the case under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Reopening the Case under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the legality of the reopening of the assessment under Section 148/147. The notice for reopening was issued based on information provided by the Investigation Wing without any independent enquiry by the AO. The Tribunal examined whether the AO had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based solely on information from the Investigation Wing and lacked independent verification or application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Delhi High Court's judgments in the cases of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and CIT-II vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., which held that reopening based on vague and non-specific information without independent application of mind is invalid. 2. Independent Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer (AO): The Tribunal scrutinized the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. It was evident that the AO had not independently verified the information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO's reasons were found to be mechanical and based solely on the information provided by higher authorities, without any independent enquiry or corroboration. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO, where similar reasons for reopening were struck down. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must independently apply their mind and not merely act on directions from other authorities. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the reopening was done without proper enquiry or opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the AO did not provide any substantial evidence or material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO must have a reasonable belief based on tangible evidence that income has escaped assessment, which was not demonstrated in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind by the AO and the reliance on unverified information from the Investigation Wing. The principles of natural justice were also found to be violated. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 09.03.2017.
|
