Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 1243 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved: Validity of reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Adequacy of reasons for reopening; Compliance with Section 151 of the Act; Application of mind by the Assessing Officer and sanctioning authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioners argued that the condition precedent for reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act is the escapement of income chargeable to tax. In the absence of such escapement, the reopening was not justified.

2. Adequacy of Reasons for Reopening:
The reasons recorded for reopening were scrutinized. The Assessing Officer cited an agreement to sell immovable properties and an advance of Rs. 5,53,53,053/- received in cash, which was not accounted for by the assessee. The petitioners contended that no transfer of property had occurred as no sale deed was executed nor possession handed over, and thus, no income chargeable to tax had arisen. The reasons were deemed vague and lacking specific details such as the date of receipt of information, source of information, and description of properties.

3. Compliance with Section 151 of the Act:
The petitioners argued that for reopening beyond four years, it is mandatory to obtain sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Such sanction should not be mechanical but should involve detailed satisfaction after perusing the material on record. The petitioners claimed that the sanction in this case was mechanical and lacked application of mind.

4. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer and Sanctioning Authority:
The petitioners asserted that the Assessing Officer must independently satisfy himself that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. They argued that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction from external information without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The respondent countered that sufficient tangible material, such as a copy of the agreement for sale and an FIR, was available, and the amount received was not disclosed in the return of income.

Judgment:
The court found that the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued solely on the ground that the assessee did not account for Rs. 5,53,53,053/- in his return of income, leading to the conclusion of income escapement. However, it was established that no sale deed was executed, nor possession handed over, meaning no income accrued from the transfer of a capital asset. The court held that the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, which was not evident in this case. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not justified.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notices dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 and the orders disposing of the objections raised by the petitioners. The rule was made absolute, and no costs were ordered.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates