2017 (4) TMI 658 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - assessment of loss - 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 our considered 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 I.T. Act 1961 on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.) New Delhi. Thus 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

Summary

Issues involved:
Reassessment proceedings based on alleged undisclosed income leading to income escaping assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reassessment Proceedings: The Assessee filed an appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the AO's reassessment of income at ?1,01,71,582/-, deviating from the loss initially declared. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 based on information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding accommodation entries. The Assessee contended that the reasons for reopening were vague and lacked tangible material. The Tribunal found the AO did not apply an independent mind, leading to a flawed reassessment. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment, ruling in favor of the Assessee.

2. Legal Grounds: The Assessee's counsel relied on a previous ITAT decision and a High Court judgment to argue for quashing the reassessment. The AO's reasons were scrutinized, and it was concluded that the AO failed to establish a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to apply his mind to the materials before issuing a notice u/s. 148. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the precedent set by the High Court, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

3. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referenced a specific case involving G&G Pharma India Ltd. to support its decision. The High Court's judgment in this case highlighted the importance of the AO forming a prima facie opinion based on tangible material before concluding that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principles outlined in the judicial precedents, resulting in the allowance of the Assessee's appeal and the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the validity of the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing the necessity for the AO to have sufficient grounds before initiating such actions. By citing relevant legal precedents and scrutinizing the AO's reasoning, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, ultimately leading to the quashing of the reassessment and allowing the appeal.