2018 (6) TMI 1573 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe escapement of income - Information of Non PAN AIR through CIB has been received that assessee has deposited cash- HELD THAT -No such inquiry is evincible from the reasons recorded, as reproduced hereinabove. The AO, squarely, has not applied his mind to the information received, before recording the reasons. There is no quarrel, as none can be, regarding immunity of the sufficiency or otherwise of material from examination by the Court. This matter stands adverted to in the preceding para. Next, concerning the nexus between the material and the formation of the belief, the reasons recorded do not show such a nexus. Inquiry by the AO is this nexus and perusal of the reasons shows this nexus or link to be missing in the present case. So, M/s Ginni Filaments 2011 (3) TMI 1756 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT works in favour of the assessee, rather than against him. The grievance of the assessee by way of ground is found to be justified. It is accepted as such. The reasons recorded by the AO are, thus, held to be null and void.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act
2. Assessment completed without serving notice under section 148
3. Legality of assessment framed under section 144
4. Assessment order barred by limitation
5. Addition of amount deposited in bank account as sale proceeds of agriculture land
6. Justification of additions/disallowances in assessment order

Issue 1: Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act:
The appellant contested the validity of the notice dated 22.03.2013 issued under section 148 of the Act, denying liability for assessment. The AO believed that income had escaped assessment based on information received through CIB. The appellant argued that the reasons recorded by the AO lacked application of mind and did not justify the notice under section 148. The appellant relied on legal precedents such as 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO' and 'Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO' to support their argument. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded did not demonstrate a proper belief of income escapement, leading to the conclusion that the notice was invalid.

Issue 2: Assessment completed without serving notice under section 148:
The appellant contended that the assessment under section 144 was invalid as no notice was served upon them. The Tribunal observed that the absence of a valid notice under section 148 rendered the assessment void ab initio, highlighting a procedural flaw in the assessment process.

Issue 3: Legality of assessment framed under section 144:
The appellant challenged the legality of the assessment framed under section 144 due to the absence of a notice served upon them. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument, emphasizing that an assessment conducted without proper notice being served on the assessee was legally flawed and unsustainable.

Issue 4: Assessment order barred by limitation:
The appellant raised the issue of the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail, suggesting a lack of substantial discussion or contention regarding the limitation aspect in the judgment.

Issue 5: Addition of amount deposited in bank account as sale proceeds of agriculture land:
The appellant objected to the addition of the amount deposited in the bank account as sale proceeds of agriculture land, arguing that agriculture income should not be treated as a capital asset. They contended that the additions were made without proper justification and on presumptions, contrary to the onus on the AO to prove income escapement. The Tribunal noted the appellant's explanations and emphasized the need for proper verification and justification before making such additions.

Issue 6: Justification of additions/disallowances in assessment order:
The appellant challenged the additions and disallowances in the assessment order, alleging that they were illegal, unjustified, and based on incorrect assumptions. They argued that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice by not allowing adequate hearing. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for proper justification and adherence to legal principles in making additions and disallowances.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues raised by the appellant and the Tribunal's considerations and decisions regarding each issue involved in the case.