2017 (1) TMI 1374 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - whether the reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 are illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of any tangible evidence or material in respect of any undisclosed income and recording of requisite satisfaction in respect of any such undisclosed income or not? - Held that - AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In my view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Income Tax Department. Keeping in view of the facts the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148.
2. Legality of reassessment proceedings under Section 147.
3. Validity of notice under Section 143(2).
4. Legality and correctness of the assessment order.
5. Principles of natural justice and opportunity of being heard.
6. Addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148 was illegal, time-barred, and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had mechanically issued the notice based on information received from the CIT (Central)-III, New Delhi, without applying his own mind. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and not based on any tangible material. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, citing that the AO did not independently conclude that income had escaped assessment.

2. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The Tribunal observed that the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was not based on any tangible evidence or material. The reasons were found to be vague and not acceptable in the eyes of law. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and G&G Pharma India Ltd., which held that reassessment proceedings initiated on vague information without independent application of mind by the AO are invalid.

3. Validity of Notice under Section 143(2):
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as the reassessment proceedings were already quashed. However, the implication is that any subsequent actions, including the issuance of notice under Section 143(2), would also be invalid if the initial notice under Section 148 is quashed.

4. Legality and Correctness of the Assessment Order:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal, and wrong on facts. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings themselves were invalid, making the assessment order based on such proceedings illegal.

5. Principles of Natural Justice and Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds. However, it is implied that the lack of proper procedure further invalidated the assessment.

6. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:
The assessee challenged the addition of ?15,05,250 as unexplained cash credit. Since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, it did not address this issue in detail, rendering the addition under Section 68 moot.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all five appeals, quashing the reassessment proceedings and the assessment orders based on the invalidity of the notice under Section 148 and the lack of tangible material or independent application of mind by the AO. The other issues raised were not dealt with in detail, as the primary legal ground itself was sufficient to decide the appeals in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2017.

← Previous Next →