9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1529 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - borrowed satisfaction - reopening on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Reopening was made on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for such reopening. The Jurisdictional High Court in a number of cases has held that the reopening on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO is not valid. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be illegal. Since in the instant case the reopening has been made on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148, therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is not proper. Therefore hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is illegal and accordingly the subsequent proceedings also become illegal. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds being academic in nature are not being adjudicated. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148. 2. Addition of ?5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 3. Addition of ?10,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). 5. Charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147 and Issuance of Notice under Section 148: The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on information from the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) upheld the reassessment, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Pratibha Finvest P. Ltd. vs. ITO, which supported reopening based on investigation reports if it leads to a bona fide belief under Section 147. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO did not independently apply his mind and merely relied on the Investigation Wing's report. Citing decisions from the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal held that such reopening without independent application of mind is invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings illegal. 2. Addition of ?5,00,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The AO added ?5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, suspecting the share capital received from M/s Thar Steels Pvt. Ltd., a company controlled by Shri Tarun Goyal, to be an accommodation entry. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, relying on the Investigation Wing's findings and the Delhi High Court's decision in Onassis Axles (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal, however, did not adjudicate on this issue separately as it found the reassessment proceedings themselves to be invalid. 3. Addition of ?10,000/- as Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69C: The AO also added ?10,000/- as unexplained expenditure for obtaining accommodation entries. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. Again, the Tribunal did not separately address this issue due to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. 4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, given that the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid. 5. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee also disputed the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. This issue was not separately adjudicated by the Tribunal due to the primary finding of invalid reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind, relying solely on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent additions were deemed illegal, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not address the other grounds separately, as they were considered academic in light of the primary finding.
|
