9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1782 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - addition u/s 69 - tangible material having live link with the escapement of the income - AO on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation), New Delhi reopened the assessment u/s 147 to investigate the source of investment made by the assessee in assets leased to it - HELD THAT - For the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated to make further enquiries is concerned, we find the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 411 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that where the assessee had shown gift of shares to a company, merely because the assessee had been called upon by the Assessing Officer for verification of value of shares in terms of section 47(iii), it would not enable the Revenue to resort to section 147 of the I.T. Act. We find the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar 2016 (11) TMI 1395 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that the reassessment cannot be initiated for the purposes of deep verification As under the guise of reopening of the assessment, AO wants to have a roving inquiry; as observed hereinabove. Even as per the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has specifically mentioned that for the purpose of verification/ deep verification of the claim, it is necessary to reopen the assessment. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had any tangible material to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. Under the circumstances, the impugned action of reopening of the assessment in exercise of power under Section 148 for the reasons recorded hereinabove cannot be sustained. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated for the purposes of making verification in absence of any valuable material available with the Assessing Officer to show that the income has escaped assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of ?6,50,000 under Section 69C for alleged renovation expenses. 3. Addition of ?22,76,000 under Section 68 for unexplained share application money. 4. Addition of ?22,71,000 under Section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans. 5. Non-admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 6. Violation of principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147/148: The assessee contested the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147/148, arguing that the conditions for a valid assumption of jurisdiction were not met. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information from the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation), New Delhi, regarding undisclosed investments in renovations. The AO believed that the investment made by the assessee had escaped assessment. The assessee argued that the reassessment was initiated merely to verify or make further inquiries, which is not permissible under Section 147. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that reassessment cannot be initiated merely for verification or based solely on the report of the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were not justified and thus void ab initio. 2. Addition of ?6,50,000 under Section 69C: The AO made an addition of ?6,50,000 under Section 69C, assuming that the assessee had incurred this amount on the renovation of Cup & Soccer Restaurant. The assessee contested this addition, stating that no such expenditure was incurred and that any admission by the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) was made without proper instructions and was not corroborated by evidence. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate on this issue, as the reassessment proceedings themselves were held to be invalid. 3. Addition of ?22,76,000 under Section 68 for Unexplained Share Application Money: The AO added ?22,76,000 under Section 68, citing the assessee's failure to provide names, addresses, and confirmations of the subscribers towards the increase in share application money. The assessee argued that the addition was made without granting a fair opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue on merits due to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. 4. Addition of ?22,71,000 under Section 68 for Unexplained Unsecured Loans: Similarly, the AO made an addition of ?22,71,000 under Section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans, as the assessee did not provide necessary details and confirmations. The assessee contended that the addition was made without a fair opportunity to present evidence. This issue was also not specifically adjudicated by the Tribunal due to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. 5. Non-admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A, which included documents seized by the CBI and provided to the assessee in March 2011. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee did not provide a valid reason for not producing the evidence earlier. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the overarching finding on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. 6. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee claimed that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not granted a fair opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and AO did not provide reasonable opportunities for the assessee to present evidence, especially considering the hospitalization and subsequent death of the assessee's AR. However, this issue was not specifically adjudicated due to the primary finding on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were void ab initio. Consequently, the various additions made by the AO were not adjudicated on merits, as the reassessment itself was invalid. The appeals for both assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were allowed based on the same reasoning.
|
