9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 936 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - receipt of accommodation entries - AO reopened the assessment on the basis of information of other persons - Held that - AO in the reasons recorded mentioned that it had come to his knowledge that the persons from whom amount was received were entry operator and provided the entries to the assessee after receiving the amount in cash, however, nothing was brought on record that how and in what manner the persons from whom the assessee received the loans were entry operator and that as to how the cash was paid by the assessee. In fact the aforesaid conclusion of the A.O. is unhelpful in understanding as to whether the AO applied his mind to the material, particularly when he did not describe how and in what manner it came to his knowledge that the assessee received the accommodation entries. Thus the reopening done by the AO u/s 147 of the Act was not valid and accordingly the subsequent assessment framed by the AO was void-ab-initio and therefore the same is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of ?7,50,000 on account of share capital as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 3. Addition of ?15,000 on account of alleged commission paid. 4. Legality and fairness of the assessment order. 5. Charging of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not comply with mandatory conditions and lacked valid reasons. The AO initiated reassessment based on information from the Investigation Wing, alleging the assessee received accommodation entries from identified entry operators. The AO's notice dated 30.03.2010 under Section 148 required the assessee to file a return of income. The assessee responded, requesting the reasons recorded for the reassessment. The AO proceeded with the reassessment, making additions for share application money and commission paid from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, stating the information from the Investigation Wing was sufficient to form a belief of income escaping assessment. The CIT(A) cited various judicial precedents supporting reassessment based on information from investigation agencies. The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the assessment based on information from other persons without independently verifying the details. The Tribunal referenced the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., emphasizing the necessity for the AO to apply his mind to the material before forming a belief of income escaping assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not satisfy this requirement, rendering the reassessment invalid and the subsequent assessment void-ab-initio. 2. Addition of ?7,50,000 on Account of Share Capital as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The AO added ?7,50,000 received as share capital from Sh. Vivek Aggarwal and M/s Globe Tech Solutions (P) Ltd., treating it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, asserting that the share application money was received during the relevant assessment year and the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief was not a requirement at the reopening stage. Given the Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, this addition was rendered moot and no findings were provided on its merits. 3. Addition of ?15,000 on Account of Alleged Commission Paid: The AO made an additional ?15,000 (2% of ?7,50,000) for alleged commission paid from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. As with the share capital addition, the Tribunal's decision to invalidate the reassessment proceedings rendered this addition moot, and no findings were provided on its merits. 4. Legality and Fairness of the Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, and contrary to facts and law. The Tribunal, focusing on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings, did not delve into these arguments in detail. The reassessment order was quashed, addressing the legality concerns. 5. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the charging of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D. The Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment order rendered this issue moot, and no specific findings were provided. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, deeming them invalid due to the AO's failure to independently verify information and apply his mind to the material. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was void-ab-initio, and no findings were provided on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
