9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1406 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligible reasons to believe - non independent application of mind by AO - borrowed knowledge - Held that - AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year - the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DIT (Investigation), New Delhi. Thus the reopening in the case of the assessee for the AY in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. See Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT . - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening the case under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Justification of additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. 3. Proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. 4. Commission paid on transactions. 5. Dismissal of grounds raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Issue 1: Validity of Reopening the Case The Assessee challenged the reopening of the case under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) relied on information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding accommodation entries provided by certain entities. The AO concluded that the Assessee introduced unaccounted money through these entries. However, the Tribunal found the reasons recorded for reopening the case to be vague and lacking tangible material. Citing the precedent of Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd., the Tribunal held that the AO did not apply his mind properly before issuing the notice under section 148. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, ruling in favor of the Assessee. Issue 2: Justification of Additions under Section 68 The Assessing Officer made additions of ?49,64,700 based on the reopened assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the Assessee's appeal but affirmed the AO's action on legal grounds related to the reopening of the case. The Tribunal, after quashing the reassessment proceedings, did not delve into the other issues raised by the Assessee, deeming them academic in nature due to the primary issue being resolved in favor of the Assessee. Issue 3: Proof of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness of Transactions The Assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions with various entities, as listed in the appeal grounds. The AO held that the amount involved was the Assessee's own money and liable to be taxed. However, this issue was not specifically addressed by the Tribunal due to the primary issue of reopening the case being decided in favor of the Assessee. Issue 4: Commission Paid on Transactions The AO made an addition of 0.5% as commission on the amounts involved in the transactions, even in the absence of concrete evidence. This addition was also not specifically discussed by the Tribunal after quashing the reassessment proceedings. Issue 5: Dismissal of Grounds Raised Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) The Assessee raised various grounds before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were dismissed. The Commissioner partly allowed the appeal but upheld the AO's action on the legal issue of reopening the case. However, the Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings rendered further discussion on these dismissed grounds unnecessary. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings due to the lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer in reopening the case. This decision favored the Assessee and resolved the primary issue, leading to the allowance of the Assessee's appeal.
|
