9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1789 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - non- independent application of mind - information has been received from the DIT (Investigation) New Delhi - HELD THAT - There were duplicate entries (i.e. the same entries were repeated) at item numbers 20 22 24 26 28 and 30. In fact the A.O. acknowledges this fact that the same entry was recorded more than once in the information provided by the DDIT at para 8.1 and 8.2 of the assessment order. This demonstrates that the A.O. has not gone through the information received from the Investigation Wing. A basic verification would have revealed the duplication of entries. He simply based his reasons on this information without application of mind or verification. CIT in the case on hand has not recorded his satisfaction and accorded approval as required under the provisions of S.151(2) of the Act. He has simply recorded that he has granted approval in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Had he recorded the reasons he would have realized that there were duplicate entries and repetitions. Under such circumstances the reopening is held to be bad in law. As in M/S N.C. CABLES LTD. 2017 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that the mere appending of the expression approved say nothing. Applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of the case we have to necessarily quash the assessments on the ground that re-opening is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) in granting approval under Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee argued that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to non-application of mind by the AO to the information received from the Director of Income Tax, Investigation wing. The reasons recorded were without preliminary verification and lacked application of mind. The AO based his reasons on the information without proper verification, which included duplicate entries. This was evident from the assessment order where the AO acknowledged the repetition of the same entry multiple times. The Tribunal referred to the case of Principal CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd., where it was held that the AO must apply his mind to the materials to have reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that in the present case, the AO did not apply his mind to the information received and merely accepted it mechanically, which is insufficient for reopening an assessment. Issue 2: Application of Mind by the AO and ACIT in Granting Approval under Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee contended that the ACIT granted approval under Section 151(1) mechanically without application of mind. The Tribunal supported this contention by referring to the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, where it was held that the AO must have a bona fide belief based on specific information. The Tribunal found that the ACIT did not record his satisfaction properly and merely granted approval in a mechanical manner. The Tribunal also referred to the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain, where it was held that the AO must verify the correctness of the information received and not merely accept it mechanically. The Tribunal found that the ACIT did not apply his mind and failed to notice the duplicate entries. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to non-application of mind by both the AO and the ACIT. The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment as bad in law and allowed the assessee's appeal. Order: The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the reopening of the assessment was quashed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2017.
|
