9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1322 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reassessment proceedings on the basis of PAN/AIR information that the assessee has sold immovable property during F.Y. 2008- 09 - HELD THAT - Assessee has successfully demonstrate that PAN No. BAHPS3364R and filed return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 18.02.2010 whereas the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment stated that no return has been filed by assessee. This shows casual approach of Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings on the basis of incomplete details regarding filing of ITR by assessee for A.Y. 2009-10. In this situation and in view of proposition rendered by ITAT, Delhi in the case of Shri Jagat Singh 2018 (9) TMI 1776 - ITAT DELHI we are compelled to hold that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued without application of mind by AO on the basis of incomplete information without any verification of the facts then it amounts to omission on the part of AO in complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 147 148 - Consequently, reassessment order and of consequent proceedings and orders become bad in law. Assessment order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act is not sustainable being bad in law thus the same is quashed. Accordingly, the legal ground No.1 and 2 of assessee are allowed.
Issues:
Admission of additional grounds by the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings, validity of reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, compliance with mandatory conditions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and serving notice under Section 148 on the latest available address of the assessee. Admission of Additional Grounds: The assessee sought admission of additional grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment order and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Counsel of the assessee argued that the additional grounds were purely legal in nature and crucial to the case, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court. The Departmental Representative opposed the admission but acknowledged the legal nature of the additional grounds. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for consideration, emphasizing their legal nature and significance in challenging the jurisdiction and validity of the reassessment proceedings. Validity of Reassessment Order: The Counsel of the assessee contended that the reassessment order was invalid as the Assessing Officer did not comply with the mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act. It was argued that the AO passed the order without obtaining necessary approvals and without serving notice under Section 148 at the latest available address of the assessee within the statutory period. The Senior DR defended the AO's actions, stating that valid approvals were obtained. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and found that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on incomplete information, showing a casual approach. It held that the reassessment order and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to the AO's failure to comply with mandatory requirements, ultimately quashing the reassessment order. Compliance with Mandatory Conditions: The Counsel highlighted that the AO failed to comply with mandatory conditions under the Act, such as obtaining valid approvals and serving notice within the allowable period. The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment and the actual filing of the return by the assessee. It concluded that the AO's actions were based on incomplete information and lacked proper verification, leading to non-compliance with statutory requirements. Consequently, the reassessment order and related proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed. Serving Notice under Section 148: The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings without verifying whether the assessee had filed the return for the relevant assessment year. The Counsel provided evidence of the return filed by the assessee, contradicting the AO's claim of non-filing. The Tribunal found that the AO's actions were based on incomplete information and a lack of verification, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order. The Tribunal allowed the legal grounds raised by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements for reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the legal grounds raised, quashing the reassessment order due to the AO's failure to comply with mandatory conditions and serve notice under Section 148 properly. As the appeal was allowed on legal grounds, other grounds related to merits were not adjudicated, becoming infructuous. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2022, in favor of the assessee.
|
