9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1417 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s. 68 - identity and credit worthiness of the subscribers to the share application money and genuineness of transaction, were not established satisfactorily - HELD THAT - As reasons recorded by the AO/DCIT, Circle 17(1), New Delhi for reopening and the approval thereof by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-17, New Delhi, we are of the view that AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. AO has mechanically issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. As applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding share application money and commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment The case involved the Department filing an appeal and the Assessee filing a Cross Objection regarding the Order dated 12.11.2009 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi for assessment year 2000-01. The Department challenged the deletion of additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee contested the validity of reassessment under sections 147 to 153 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148 based on information from the Investigation Wing, alleging undisclosed income from share application money and commission paid to entry operators. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 84,19,350. The CIT(A) partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, leading to the Department's appeal and the Assessee's Cross Objection. Issue 1 Analysis: The Assessee challenged the validity of reopening under section 147, arguing that the AO did not record proper reasons, lacked nexus between materials and belief of income escapement, and failed to obtain necessary approvals. The Assessee cited a High Court decision to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO were vague, lacked tangible material, and did not demonstrate an independent conclusion on income escapement. Citing the High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening was bad in law and quashed the reassessment. Issue 2: Deletion of Additions The Department's appeal became infructuous due to the quashing of the reassessment. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's Cross Objection, leading to the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding share application money and commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. The Cross Objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, quashing the reassessment based on the lack of proper reasons and legal requirements for reopening under section 147. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted, leading to the allowance of the Assessee's Cross Objection and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
