2016 (12) TMI 1200 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Addition on Interest on bank accounts in UK and loan given - Held that - No doubt, the letters received from the UK authorities were sufficient to trigger a reassessment proceedings but exactly that is where the Revenue, in our opinion, faltered. Having received information, it could well have proceeded through a reassessment proceeding at the earliest opportunity, i.e. in October 1989 or latest by December of that year, the revenue chose to wait for three years and sought to reopen at least a decade-late completed assessment. By then the assessee had died. There are certainly pointers to interesting omissions and in any event, leads that could have been developed by the AO, such as queries to the Bank of India, for foreign inward remittances and their source. If the assessee were alive, upon receipt of such information, he might well have been confronted with them. The lack of any probe in this regard and almost exclusive reliance upon the UK revenue information, in our opinion, was not sufficient to conclude that the amount which was attributed to the deceased assessee, i.e. UK 2 million in fact belonged to him. In fact, the materials show that these amounts were brought to tax in the hands of Sh. Kumar. Rather than accepting what ought to be the correct standard, this Court is of the opinion that the tax authorities did not do what they could have and had not done what they should have when they did get information in September 1989 and woke-up far too late. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the question of law framed should be answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.

Issues:
1. Reopening of completed assessment based on information from UK tax authority.
2. Taxability of interest on bank accounts in UK and loan given to an individual in UK.
3. Validity of the order of the Tribunal deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Issue 1: Reopening of completed assessment based on information from UK tax authority:
The case involved the reopening of a completed assessment for AY 1982-83 based on information received from the UK tax authority regarding suspected income evasion by the deceased assessee's brother-in-law. The reassessment notice was opposed by the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, but the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) who brought to tax a significant sum. The High Court noted the circumstances surrounding the reopening and highlighted the lack of timely action by the revenue authorities in pursuing the matter promptly after receiving the information. The Court pointed out potential investigative leads that could have been pursued earlier, emphasizing the failure of the authorities to act promptly, especially considering the death of the original assessee before the proceedings commenced.

Issue 2: Taxability of interest on bank accounts in UK and loan given to an individual in UK:
The case involved the taxability of interest income on bank accounts in the UK and a loan given by the deceased assessee to an individual in the UK. The CIT(A) had brought certain amounts to tax based on correspondence between Indian and UK tax authorities. However, the ITAT, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the additions made by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The ITAT highlighted the informal nature of the interviews conducted by UK tax officials and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the additions. It was observed that the UK revenue authorities did not accept the assessee's explanation regarding the funds, leading the ITAT to delete the additions. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing the lack of corroborative material and the belated reassessment proceedings conducted after the original assessee's death.

Issue 3: Validity of the order of the Tribunal deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A):
The main question of law framed in this case was whether the Tribunal's order deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to interest on bank accounts in the UK and a loan given by the assessee to an individual in the UK was perverse, contradictory, and based on surmises and conjectures. The High Court analyzed the facts, evidence, and reasoning provided by the ITAT in reaching its decision to delete the additions. The Court found that the ITAT's decision was well-founded, considering the lack of substantial evidence and the informal nature of the interviews conducted by UK tax officials. The Court held that the revenue authorities did not adequately investigate the matter and failed to establish that the amounts attributed to the deceased assessee actually belonged to him. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, addressing each issue involved in the case thoroughly and maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.

← Previous Next →