2021 (2) TMI 1291 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - undisclosed loan transactions - action under Section 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year - whether the revenue is justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration? - HELD THAT - The record indicates that the assessee had disclosed the transactions of loan in their books of accounts and return of income. It is also admitted facts that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee had furnished all the details as called for including bank statement of parties from whom loan was taken. It is the case of the revenue that the information received from the concerned M/s. Ramdev Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd is paper company managed by Mr. Pravin Jain and he was found to be an accommodation entry provider and the alleged transaction is bogus transaction and therefore the amount of unsecured loan and interest thereon is liable to tax and has escaped assessment. After careful examination of the reasons recorded and the order of disposing of the objection we find that on 08.10.2014 the scrutiny assessment was concluded. The search action carried out on 01.10.2013 in the case of Mr. Pravinkumar Jain. In the reasons recorded it is nowhere mention that on which date the information was received by the department. Thus we are of the considered view that the information as mentioned in the reasons recorded cannot be termed as tangible material as at the time of scrutiny assessment it was very much available with the department. Assessee had disclosed fully and truly material facts with respect to loan transaction as well the interest paid on the loan. Admittedly the loan was paid up by the assessee on 21.08.2014 with the interest after deducting TDS thereon. The Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment accepted the transaction. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee had withheld the primary material and assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts of the assessment. Thus the conditions precedent for exercise of power under Section 147 after expiry of period of 4 years of relevant assessment year are not satisfied - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the reopening of the assessment is justified under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the reopening is based on tangible material or merely a change of opinion.
4. Compliance with the requirement of disclosing fully and truly all material facts by the assessee.
5. Applicability of the four-year limitation period for reopening assessments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 28.03.2019 issued under Section 148, seeking to reopen the income tax assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13. The notice was issued beyond the four-year limitation period from the end of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner argued that there was no failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, rendering the notice invalid.

2. Justification for Reopening the Assessment Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the revenue was justified in reopening the assessment. Section 147 allows reopening if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on information already available at that time, thus not satisfying the conditions for reopening.

3. Tangible Material vs. Change of Opinion:
The petitioner argued that the reopening was based on a change of opinion rather than fresh tangible material. During the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had examined the details of the unsecured loan and interest expenses and did not make any additions. The court found that the information relied upon for reopening was available during the original assessment, indicating that the reopening was based on the same facts and constituted a change of opinion, which is not permissible.

4. Compliance with Disclosure Requirements by the Assessee:
The court noted that the assessee had disclosed all details regarding the loan transactions, including bank statements and returns of income, during the original assessment proceedings. The revenue's claim that the assessee failed to disclose material facts was not supported by evidence. The court concluded that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all necessary material facts, and there was no failure on their part.

5. Applicability of the Four-Year Limitation Period:
The reopening was initiated beyond the four-year limitation period. The court emphasized that reopening after four years requires a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts, the conditions for reopening beyond four years were not met. Consequently, the court held that the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening was invalid and without authority.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the notice dated 28.03.2019 for reopening the assessment, holding that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible material, and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond the four-year limitation period. The writ application was allowed, and the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid.

← Previous Next →