2016 (4) TMI 254 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - assessing officer seeking to treat the relevant amount as a gift and not as a loan - Held that - . As to whether the relevant amount in this case should be regarded as a gift or as a loan, is not a jurisdictional fact; though it is a matter which may be covered in course of the reassessment. On a plain reading of the provision, if an assessing officer has reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment, appropriate steps may be taken for reassessment of the income for the relevant assessment year under Section 147 of the Act. The jurisdictional fact in such a case will not be how a particular amount or a particular transaction ought to be treated. That is the exercise that is reserved for the reassessment stage. Further, it is evident that a further disclosure had been made in the relevant return by the petitioner by referring to the transaction with Dalal and Shah. Whether or not the assessing officer would be justified in treating the relevant amount paid in the assessment year by the firm to the petitioner as a gift depends on how the additional disclosure ought to be regarded. The additional disclosure could not have been taken into account earlier and the apparent admission on the part of the petitioner that the transaction pertaining to Dalal and Shah should have been included in the original return can be seen as sufficient justification for the reassessment. That is also implied in the impugned order of August 6, 2015, though it may not have been expressed in so many words.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of a petition dismissed for default.
2. Challenge to an order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment of income.
3. Dispute over whether a certain sum of money received should be considered a gift or a loan.
4. Interpretation of jurisdictional facts and reassessment procedures.
5. Justification for reassessment based on additional disclosures in the return.
6. Dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the Court recalling an order where the petitioner was not represented, restoring the petition to the file, and allowing the restoration application without any costs. The petition is then taken up for immediate consideration, referencing a Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd as inspiration for the current petition.

2. The case involves a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessing the petitioner's income for a specific assessment year. The petitioner filed a revised return and demanded reasons for reassessment, which were provided. The petitioner contested the reasons, questioning the jurisdiction for reassessment. The assessing officer passed an order that the petitioner challenges for lack of reasons and failure to appreciate jurisdictional errors pointed out by the petitioner.

3. The dispute revolves around a sum of money received by the petitioner, which the assessing officer considered a gift but the petitioner claimed was a loan for acquiring another firm's business. The petitioner's representation against this characterization was rejected by the assessing officer in the impugned order, leading to the petitioner's argument that a proper speaking order with reasons is necessary as per the GKN Driveshafts judgment.

4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of jurisdictional facts and reassessment procedures under Section 147 of the Act. It clarifies that the assessing officer's belief that income has escaped assessment is key, and the final determination of how a transaction should be treated need not be finalized at the reassessment stage but can be subject to further appeal.

5. The Court justifies the reassessment based on additional disclosures made by the petitioner regarding transactions with specific firms. It notes that the assessing officer's view of the transaction as a gift was influenced by these disclosures, even though not explicitly stated in the impugned order.

6. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed as unmeritorious, and costs are imposed on the petitioner. However, the Court cautions against the assessing officer automatically treating the amount as a gift based solely on this order, emphasizing the need for independent reasons to support such a decision. The judgment concludes by allowing urgent certified website copies of the order to be supplied to the parties upon application.