2016 (8) TMI 277 - HC - Income Tax

Legality and validity of reopening of assessment - information received from DGIT - reasons to believe - Held that - There was independent application of mind on behalf of the assessing authority in arriving at the conclusion that income had escaped assessment and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are devoid of merits. Dealing with the contentions of the petitioner that the information received from DGIT, Investigation Branch, Ahmedabad, can never be said to be additional information. We are of the opinion that the information which has been received is on 26.3.2015 from the DGIT, Investigation Branch, Ahmedabad, whereby it has been revealed that present petitioner is also the beneficiaries of those Kayan brothers, who are in the activity of entry operation throughout the country and therefore, it cannot be said that this is not justifiable material to form a reason to belief by the Authority and therefore, this being a case, the Authority is justified in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment and therefore, the challenge contained in the petition being devoid of merits, same deserves to be dismissed. As we found that for the exercise of power of reopening of assessment after a period of 4 years, a proper procedure is observed by the Authority, specific approval has been obtained from the competent Authority and upon perusal of original file, we have satisfied ourselves that the approval has been accorded in a proper manner by the competent Authority and since the notice is issued based upon substantial compliance of statutory provision, the Authority has acted well within the bounds of his powers and the Authority has issued notice. We found that the order which has been passed of rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner is also a well reasoned order passed after due exercise of jurisdiction and therefore, same is not, therefore, required to be interfered with. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the reopening of assessment was permissible beyond the period of 4 years.
3. Whether the reasons for reopening were based on independent application of mind or borrowed satisfaction.
4. Compliance with the procedure for obtaining approval from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act.
5. Whether the reopening was based on new material or information.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.3.2015, and the order disposing of the objections raised against the notice. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without any new material or information and that it was based on a mere change of opinion. The petitioner cited the decision of the Apex Court in *GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO* to support the argument that reopening of assessment without new material is impermissible.

2. Reopening of Assessment Beyond the Period of 4 Years:

The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which is not permissible as the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had already been undertaken. The petitioner argued that since no new material was available, the reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was not justified.

3. Independent Application of Mind or Borrowed Satisfaction:

The petitioner argued that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not based on an independent application of mind but on borrowed satisfaction. The petitioner pointed out that the reasons seemed to be based on information received from another authority without any independent verification or application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

4. Compliance with Procedure for Obtaining Approval Under Section 151 of the Act:

To ensure whether the Assessing Officer obtained the necessary approval from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act, the Court called for the original file. Upon perusal, the Court was satisfied that proper approval had been obtained, and the competent authority had granted approval in consonance with the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, this aspect was not in controversy, and the papers contained in the file substantiated the stand of the respondent authority.

5. Reopening Based on New Material or Information:

The Court examined the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which stated that specific information was received from the DGIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad, regarding bogus purchases and entry operators. The information revealed that the petitioner was a beneficiary of ?39.94 lakhs from entry operators. The Court noted that this new material information was not part of the original scrutiny assessment and constituted a concrete tangible material for reopening the assessment.

The Court referred to the decision in *Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.*, which clarified that at the stage of issuing a notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs to have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, not conclusively prove it. The Court also cited a recent decision in a group of tax appeals, where it was held that reopening based on information from another investigating wing is permissible.

The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer had formed a reasonable belief based on new material information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad, and that the reopening of assessment was justified. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was upheld as valid. The Court found that the reopening of assessment was based on new material information and was not a mere change of opinion. The procedure for obtaining approval from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act was duly followed.

← Previous Next →