2019 (10) TMI 1301 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening u/s 147 - information received from Office of Pr. Director of Income Tax that Assessee is a beneficiary who contrived loss, who shifted out through client code modification - HELD THAT - From composite discrepancies recorded in the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the ld AO on receipt of information has not at all looked at the return of income filed by the assessee. Thus, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 2017 (7) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In this case the specific information such as date of return, amount of income returned and whether the escapement of income is provided or loss has not at all been verified by the ld AO. In view of this on the above reasons recorded by the ld AO, we do not upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ld AO thus, on the issue of reopening u/s 147 we reverse the finding of the lower authorities and allow ground 1 of the appeal of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147/148
2. Principle of Natural Justice not followed by the Assessing Officer
3. Addition of ?398,521/- upheld by CIT(A)
4. Non-compliance with binding judgments of higher courts and tribunals
5. Validity of reassessment proceedings

Analysis:

1. Reopening of assessment under section 147/148:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, contending that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not apply his mind and mechanically initiated the action based on information from the Investigation Wing. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be without proper verification and application of mind. Discrepancies in the date of return filed by the assessee and the income figures provided by the AO were noted. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to verify crucial details before initiating reassessment. Relying on a decision by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable due to the lack of proper verification, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.

2. Principle of Natural Justice not followed by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee raised concerns about the non-observance of the Principle of Natural Justice by the AO. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue as the appeal was allowed based on the jurisdictional issue of the reassessment proceedings.

3. Addition of ?398,521/- upheld by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) had upheld the addition of ?398,521/-, ignoring the facts and statutory provisions presented by the assessee. The Tribunal did not address this issue specifically as the appeal was allowed based on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings.

4. Non-compliance with binding judgments of higher courts and tribunals:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not follow binding judgments of higher courts and tribunals on similar facts. However, this issue was not adjudicated by the Tribunal as the appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional issue.

5. Validity of reassessment proceedings:
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were not sustainable due to the lack of proper verification and application of mind. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issue of reopening under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. As this jurisdictional issue was decided in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal did not address the other grounds of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO, highlighting the importance of proper verification and application of mind in such cases.