9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1732 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - no return was being filed by the assessee - HELD THAT - Material on record showed that the assessee filed original return of income for assessment year under appeal in October 2008, and is also not disputed by the Ld. DR. AO, therefore, recorded incorrect, irrelevant and non- existing reasons u/s 148 . The reasons, therefore, are vitiated and liable to be quashed as would not showed even prima facie case that the Assessing officer has any reason to believe that income escaped assessment. It is not discernable as to whether Assessing officer has applied his mind to the report of the DIT (Inv.) New Delhi which is sole basis of recording of reasons for reopening of the assessment and independently arrived at a belief that income has escaped assessment, therefore, Assessing officer did not get jurisdiction to make re-assessment. No material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The re-assessment proceeding were invalid and are liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the reasons to believe for invoking provisions of Section 147 and 148. 3. Consideration and disposal of objections against the reasons recorded for reopening. 4. Addition of ?31,00,000 on account of share application money. 5. Applicability of legal precedents regarding the addition of share application money in the hands of the receiver company. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified. The appellate tribunal noted that the reopening was based on information from the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi, suggesting the assessee received accommodation entries of ?21 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reasons and issued a notice under Section 148, leading to an addition of ?31 lakhs. The tribunal found that the AO had properly recorded reasons for reopening the assessment and thus upheld the legality of the reopening. 2. Validity of the Reasons to Believe for Invoking Provisions of Section 147 and 148: The assessee contended that there was no valid reason to believe that warranted the invocation of Sections 147 and 148. The tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the AO, which were based on information from the DIT (Investigation). The AO believed that income amounting to ?21 lakhs had escaped assessment due to accommodation entries from certain Delhi-based companies. The tribunal found that the AO had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, thus validating the invocation of Sections 147 and 148. 3. Consideration and Disposal of Objections Against the Reasons Recorded for Reopening: The assessee argued that the reassessment was upheld without considering and disposing of the objections raised against the reasons recorded. The tribunal observed that the AO had recorded proper reasons for issuing the notice under Section 148 and that the objections raised by the assessee were devoid of merit. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's plea on this ground. 4. Addition of ?31,00,000 on Account of Share Application Money: The AO made an addition of ?31 lakhs under Section 69 of the Act, as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of certain companies could not be proved during the assessment stage. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details such as PAN numbers, bank details, and confirmation letters from the shareholders. However, the CIT(A) found that the identity of the shareholders was not proved, and the onus to prove the genuineness of the credit was not discharged. The tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO. 5. Applicability of Legal Precedents Regarding the Addition of Share Application Money in the Hands of the Receiver Company: The assessee cited several legal precedents, arguing that any addition on account of share application money should be made in the hands of the person who invested the amount, not the receiver company. The tribunal considered these precedents but found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was upheld. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was valid, and the AO had sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The objections raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the addition of ?31 lakhs was upheld. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the grounds of quashing the reopening of the assessment, rendering the discussion on merits academic. All additions made in the reassessment order were deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court.
|
