9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1469 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reasons to believe - non independent application of mind by AO - HELD THAT - AO has not applied his mind while recording his reasons without assigning any valid reasons that no reasons have been given to make out a case that income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the impugned assessment year. Such vague reasons without the application of mind cannot give rise to acquisition or jurisdiction by the AO for the reassessment and therefore same are directed to be quashed. AO issued notice u/s 148 of Act on the wrong and invalid assumption of Jurisdictional and all subsequent proceedings is pursuance thereto can t be held as sustainable and valid hence, the same deserve to be quashed and we quash the same. See G G PHARMA INDIA LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of notice issued under Section 148 and reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) as required under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Application of mind by the AO on tangible material with a live nexus to the income that escaped assessment. 4. Legality and jurisdiction of the assessment order passed under Sections 144/147 and the addition made therein. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Legality and Jurisdiction of Notice Issued Under Section 148 and Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 147 read with Section 144: The assessee challenged the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, claiming they were "illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction." The Tribunal found that the AO did not apply his mind while recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. The reasons were deemed vague and lacked valid grounds to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, citing similar cases like Smt. Bala vs. ITO and Suresh M. Bajaj vs. ITO, where the reassessment was also quashed due to the AO's failure to apply independent judgment and reliance on vague AIR information. 2. Recording of Satisfaction by the AO as Required Under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee argued that the AO did not record satisfaction as required under Sections 147/148 before issuing the notice. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO merely relied on information from the AIR without any independent verification or application of mind. The Tribunal referenced the case of CIT vs. G & G Pharma, where the Delhi High Court emphasized that the AO must apply his mind to the materials and form a belief that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure to record satisfaction invalidated the reassessment proceedings. 3. Application of Mind by the AO on Tangible Material with a Live Nexus to the Income that Escaped Assessment: The Tribunal observed that the AO did not apply his mind to tangible material with a live nexus to the income that allegedly escaped assessment. The AO's reasons were based on unverified AIR information, which is insufficient for reopening an assessment. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co., which held that the AO must apply his mind to the information and form a belief thereon. The Tribunal found that the AO's mechanical approach and lack of independent verification rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. 4. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 144/147 and the Addition Made Therein: The assessee contended that the assessment order passed under Sections 144/147 and the addition made were illegal and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, having quashed the reassessment proceedings on legal grounds, did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the additions made. The Tribunal concluded that since the reassessment proceedings were invalid, the assessment order and the additions therein could not be sustained. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO, holding them to be "bad in law and without jurisdiction." The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the necessity for the AO to apply independent judgment and verify information before reopening an assessment. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 4.10.2017.
|
