2016 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained gifts - reasons to believe - Held that - AO merely mentioned that the name of the assessee appear in the list of beneficiaries having channelized her undisclosed income in the garb of gift. Admittedly. In the present case gift was from her paternal aunt, a close relative and the donor Smt. Sita Devi cann t be alleged as bogus or accommodation entry provider in absence of any substantial evidence, specially when the assessee has established her identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction of gift by furnishing bank statement of the donor, affidavit of the done (assessee) and the donor (Smt. Sita Devi) gift deed dated 23.1.2004, copy of acknowledgement and Balance sheet of Smt Sita Devi showing her capital and assets, copy of PAN card etc. The AO has not mentioned in the reasons recorded that he either examined the information or verified it from the relevant assessment record of the assessee for AY 2004-05 which clearly shows not application of mind and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act in a mechanical manner. Because had the AO examined the details and the alleged information, he would have certainly known that information and allegation of accommodation entry is factually incorrect and baseless. Thus we are inclined to hold that the AO proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings and to issue notice u/s 147/148 of the Act on the vague information without verifying and examining the same and without application of mind in a mechanical manner and hence, the AO did not assume valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act and thus notice u/s 148 of the Act and impugned necessary order passed in pursuant thereto u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is not sustainable and we quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148.
2. Addition under Section 68 on account of gift.
3. Non-adjudication of ground related to addition of Rs. 25,050.

Detailed Analysis:

Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147/148:
The primary contention of the assessee revolves around the legality of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 147/148. The assessee argued that the AO invoked these sections based on vague and general information without any tangible evidence. The AO did not dispose of the objections raised regarding jurisdiction, nor did he provide sufficient material to justify the reopening of the assessment.

The tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 147 and issuing notice under Section 148. It was observed that the AO relied on a supplementary list of beneficiaries provided by the DCIT Central Circle-III, which included the assessee's name as a beneficiary of an entry operator. The AO concluded that the assessee had channeled undisclosed income in the form of a gift from Ms. Sita Devi amounting to Rs. 5,01,000.

The tribunal found that the AO had issued the notice in a mechanical manner without verifying the details or applying his mind to the information received. The reasons recorded were deemed vague and not based on any tangible material. The tribunal cited several precedents, including the decision in G & G Pharma (India) Ltd., where it was held that reopening of assessments under Sections 147/148 can be considered bad in law if the AO has not applied his mind independently to conclude that income has escaped assessment.

The tribunal concluded that the AO did not assume valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as the initiation of reassessment proceedings was based on vague information without proper verification or application of mind. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 were quashed.

Addition under Section 68 on Account of Gift:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5,01,000 made by the AO under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The AO had treated the gift received from Ms. Sita Devi as an accommodation entry, alleging that the assessee had introduced undisclosed income in the garb of a gift.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction. This included the bank statement of the donor, an affidavit from both the donor and the donee, a gift deed, and other relevant documents. The tribunal found no substantial evidence to support the AO's allegation that the gift was a bogus transaction or an accommodation entry.

Given the quashing of the reassessment proceedings, the tribunal did not delve further into the merits of this addition, rendering the issue academic and infructuous.

Non-adjudication of Ground Related to Addition of Rs. 25,050:
The assessee also raised a ground regarding the addition of Rs. 25,050 made by the AO, which was not adjudicated upon by the CIT(A). This addition was related to the alleged gift and was made based on surmises and conjectures.

Since the tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order, this ground also became academic and infructuous. The tribunal did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, as it was rendered moot by the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal grounds, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 and the consequent reassessment order. The issues related to the addition under Section 68 and the non-adjudication of the addition of Rs. 25,050 were rendered academic and infructuous. The order was pronounced in court on 24.02.2016.

← Previous Next →