2017 (7) TMI 911 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - AO has not disposed of the objections for reopening the assessment before passing the reassessment order - Held that - Keeping in view the reasons for reopening the assessment, we would follow the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MSPL Gase Ltd (2016 (2) TMI 469 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) and hold that reassessment order passed without disposing of the objections is bad in law. Thus, we set aside the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without valid reasons.
2. Addition of undisclosed income based on share capital received.
3. Disposal of objections before passing reassessment order.
4. Validity of reassessment order without disposing of objections.
5. Comparison of decisions by different High Courts on similar issues.

Issue 1: The appellant challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, contending that it lacked valid reasons and was based on unestablished information. The appellant argued that the reassessment order was bad-in-law due to the absence of valid grounds for reopening.

Issue 2: The Assessing Officer added ?5,00,000 as undisclosed income, alleging that it was concealed income from share capital received. The appellant disputed this addition, claiming that all relevant records were provided, and the investment was legitimate. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal.

Issue 3: The appellant raised objections to the reopening of assessment, which were not disposed of before the reassessment order was passed. The appellant argued that as per legal precedents, objections should have been addressed before proceeding with reassessment.

Issue 4: The Tribunal analyzed the validity of the reassessment order passed without disposing of the appellant's objections. Citing the decision in MSPL Gases Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that passing such an order without addressing objections was invalid. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147.

Issue 5: The Tribunal compared decisions by different High Courts on similar issues. While the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court set aside reassessment orders passed without addressing objections, the Gujarat High Court granted further time for reassessment completion in a similar case. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in setting aside the reassessment order due to non-disposal of objections.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the reassessment order passed without addressing objections. The Tribunal's decision aligned with legal precedents and highlighted the importance of disposing of objections before proceeding with reassessment.