2021 (3) TMI 1396 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO received some information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had brought back some unaccounted income through shell companies - HELD THAT - Which were those shell companies has not been mentioned in the reasons recorded. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee during the year did not get any profit on the alleged shares held/sold by him. The shares were sold by the assessee at cost price, therefore, there was no question of routing any unaccounted income by way of share profit. A perusal of the reasons recorded reveals that the AO did not correlate the information received by him from the Investigation Wing with the Income-Tax Return/accounts of the assessee. He reopened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without verifying about the genuineness of the information received. Such an information from Investigation Wing may give the AO the reasons to suspect, but the same does not constitute reasons to believe, until and unless the Assessing Officer satisfies himself about veracity of the information received from the Investigation Wing so as to form the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. The necessary ingredients of forming belief by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income are missing in this case. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment being bad in law, the assessment order is quashed. The consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer are accordingly ordered to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Estimation of taxable income without sufficient basis.
3. Treatment of received amount as undisclosed income.

Analysis:
1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had initiated the reassessment based on information from the Investigation Wing alleging unaccounted income brought back by the assessee through shell companies. However, the reasons recorded lacked specific details about the alleged shell companies. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind and reopened the assessment solely on borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer failed to correlate the information received with the assessee's accounts, leading to a lack of valid reasons to believe income escapement. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the reopening of assessment as legally flawed and ordered the deletion of consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2. Estimation of Taxable Income:
The appellant contested the estimation of taxable income by the CIT(A) without a sufficient basis, amounting to Rs.4,00,000. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the audited financial statements without adverse remarks but estimated the taxable income based on conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal deemed such estimation without a solid foundation as erroneous in law. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the action of the CIT(A) in estimating the taxable income without substantial grounds was legally flawed.

3. Treatment of Received Amount as Undisclosed Income:
The appellant received an amount of Rs.4,00,000 on account of the sale of investments, duly reflected in the books of accounts. However, the CIT treated this amount as undisclosed income. The appellant pleaded that the said income should not be considered as bogus. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument and emphasized that the received amount, being properly recorded, should not be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea regarding the treatment of the received amount and ruled in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order due to the invalid reopening of assessment and ordering the deletion of consequential additions. The Tribunal also highlighted the erroneous estimation of taxable income by the CIT(A) and the unjust treatment of the received amount as undisclosed income.