2017 (3) TMI 1389 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - denial of natural justice - Held that - In the present case, arguendo, the reassessments were upheld, nevertheless the ITAT, in this Court s opinion was justified in deleting the addition. This is because the materials which the assessee had relied upon in the course of appeal to the CIT(A) did not receive any matter of scrutiny, superficial or detailed. Even for a moment, if the Revenue is correct that the information which is sourced through Investigation Wing to justify a reassessment, ipso facto that was not sufficient to conclude assessment under Section 144. The AO was granted opportunity, not merely at the stage of reassessment but also during the appellate proceedings in the remand when it was possible to verify whether the investments were genuine and whether the credits claimed were genuine given that the amounts were received through normal banking channels, in the context of the assessee s claim that it needed funds for expansion. No question of law arises

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment based on information from Investigation Wing.
2. Addition of ?1 crore by Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal to CIT(A) and admission of additional evidence.
4. CIT(A) setting aside the addition and reopening of assessment.
5. ITAT affirming CIT(A)'s order.
6. Justification of reassessment notice by ITAT.
7. Court's opinion on the deletion of the addition.

Reopening of Assessment:
The case involved the reopening of the assessee's returns for AY 2003-04 based on information from the Investigation Wing. The AO made an addition of ?1 crore without further inquiry, leading to an appeal by the assessee to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and reasoned that the reopening without new facts was akin to a mere change of opinion, following the principles established in the Kelvinator case. The Court noted the lack of new information for the reopening and the absence of a proper enquiry, leading to the deletion of the addition.

Appeal Process and CIT(A) Decision:
The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who granted a remand but did not conduct a further inquiry. The CIT(A) did not uphold the reopening of assessment, citing lack of new information for the AO to take an adverse view. The CIT(A) also found that the deposits were genuine, as they were received and refunded through bank cheques. The Court agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?1 crore, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

ITAT Decision and Justification:
The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s order, leading to an appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that there was sufficient material to justify the reassessment notice based on the Investigation Wing's report. However, the Court held that the materials relied upon by the assessee were not scrutinized properly during the appeal process. The Court highlighted that the AO had opportunities to verify the genuineness of the investments and credits claimed, especially since the funds were received through normal banking channels for expansion purposes. The Court found that the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition, as the reassessment lacked proper scrutiny and justification.

Court's Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose from the case. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of ?1 crore, emphasizing the importance of thorough scrutiny and proper assessment procedures.