2017 (2) TMI 727 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - 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. 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 Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by CIT(A).
2. Legality of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148.
3. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the reasons recorded for the notice under Section 148.
4. Confirmation of addition of ?11,16,500/- on account of share capital money under Section 68.
5. Confirmation of addition of ?11,00,000/- under Section 68.
6. Confirmation of addition of ?16,500/- as commission income.
7. Violation of the principle of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination.
8. Drawing adverse inference without completing the investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order passed by CIT(A):
The assessee challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that it was bad in law and on facts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee and affirmed the action of the AO on both the legal issue of reopening the case under Sections 147/148 and on merits.

2. Legality of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148:
The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 was bad in law as the conditions and procedures prescribed under the statute were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the AO had not applied his mind independently and had issued the notice based on information from the Investigation Wing, which lacked definiteness and tangible material. The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was bad in law and deserved to be quashed.

3. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the reasons recorded for the notice under Section 148:
The assessee argued that the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 were vague and not based on any tangible material. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the AO had mechanically issued the notice based on information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi, without independent verification or application of mind. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, citing the Delhi High Court judgment in Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd.

4. Confirmation of addition of ?11,16,500/- on account of share capital money under Section 68:
Since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, it did not address this issue in detail, deeming it academic in nature.

5. Confirmation of addition of ?11,00,000/- under Section 68:
Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal did not delve into this matter as the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

6. Confirmation of addition of ?16,500/- as commission income:
The Tribunal did not address this issue separately due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

7. Violation of the principle of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination:
The assessee contended that the addition was made based on statements from third parties without giving the opportunity for cross-examination, violating the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

8. Drawing adverse inference without completing the investigation:
The assessee argued that the AO drew adverse inferences without bringing the investigation to a logical conclusion. The Tribunal did not separately address this issue due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings on the grounds that the AO had not applied his mind independently and had issued the notice under Section 148 based on vague and indefinite information from the Investigation Wing. The other issues raised by the assessee were not addressed in detail as they were deemed academic following the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.