2019 (3) TMI 1621 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus purchases addition - HELD THAT - In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 2011 (3) TMI 1340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1) the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening is not relevant. In view of the above position of law the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the reopening done by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Estimation @ 12.5% on the purchases - We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and without a finding that the party who gave the statement before the Director of Income Tax (Inv) Mumbai named the assessee to whom they have provided any accommodation bills has made an estimated addition of Rs. 33, 46, 408/-. Thus following the ratio laid down in the decisions mentioned hereinbefore we direct the AO to delete the estimated addition of Rs. 33, 46, 408/-. Thus the 2nd ground of appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
2. Addition of unexplained expenditure based on estimated profit of alleged purchases.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Proceedings:
The appeal challenged the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case based on information regarding accommodation entries obtained by the assessee from certain parties. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reopening, stating that tangible material was available with the AO from the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai. The appellate tribunal noted that even though the reasons recorded by the AO mentioned share application money, the notice issued under section 148 was valid. Citing legal precedents, the tribunal affirmed that the existence of a reason to believe income had escaped assessment was sufficient to reopen the assessment. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal against the reopening.

Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Expenditure:
The AO estimated the profit at 12.5% of the alleged purchases made by the assessee and added Rs. 33,46,408 as unexplained expenditure to the total income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition based on a previous decision. The assessee contended that the AO did not properly consider the details submitted, which included invoices, purchase orders, and confirmations from parties. The tribunal observed that once the assessee provides prima facie evidence, the onus shifts to the department to disprove it. The tribunal found that the AO disregarded the details submitted by the assessee and made the estimated addition without proper findings linking the accommodation entries to the assessee. Relying on established legal principles, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the estimated addition of Rs. 33,46,408. Consequently, the appeal on this issue was allowed.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, dismissing the challenge against the reopening of assessment while directing the deletion of the estimated addition of unexplained expenditure.