2018 (5) TMI 1325 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - existence of reasons to believe - Held that - We have to necessarily hold that the reopening is bad in law, as in this case on hand, there is no whisper, much less an allegation that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, necessary for assessment. Hence the mandatory requirements of the proviso to section 147 has not been fulfilled in this case. We hold that the reopening is bad in law as the reasons recorded are without independent application of mind. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment after four years.
2. Validity of statements recorded under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment.
4. Evidentiary value of retracted statements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment After Four Years:
The reopening of the assessment was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond the period of four years and did not meet the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was completed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) on 31/03/2014. The reasons recorded for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Citing various case laws, including the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tao Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd., the Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 147 were not fulfilled.

2. Validity of Statements Recorded Under Section 131(1A):
The reopening was based on statements recorded from Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma and Mr. Dilip Kumar Khetan under Section 131(1A). During cross-examination, these individuals denied the contents of their statements, claiming they were coerced into signing without reading. The Tribunal noted that these denials went unchallenged by the Revenue and no further investigation was conducted to rebut these claims. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Dr. Pankas Biswas vs. State of West Bengal and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. R.N. Thippa Shetty, which held that statements recorded under coercion and later retracted cannot form a valid basis for reopening assessments.

3. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the reasons for reopening on the same day the letter from the DDIT (Inv.) was received, without any independent verification or application of mind. The AO did not have the detailed evidence or statements at the time of reopening. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, IV v. Insecticides (India) Ltd., which emphasized that the AO must apply his mind to the materials before forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was based on vague and unverified information, demonstrating non-application of mind.

4. Evidentiary Value of Retracted Statements:
The Tribunal distinguished between retraction and denial of statements. It noted that in this case, the witnesses denied the contents of their statements during cross-examination, rather than retracting them later. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shardaben K. Modi, which held that statements recorded under Section 133(A) without corroborative evidence cannot be the basis for reopening. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s finding that the reopening was based on non-existent material, as the statements were not voluntary and were effectively denied by the witnesses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law due to the lack of fulfillment of the mandatory requirements under the proviso to Section 147, non-application of mind by the AO, and the invalidity of the statements recorded under Section 131(1A) which were denied during cross-examination.

← Previous Next →