2018 (6) TMI 1176 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - after the expiry of a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year - Held that - Relief has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee on this issue by relying inter alia on the decision of the Delhi High Court as well as that of the Division Bench on this Tribunal stating no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to examine the facts of this case in which original assessment was done u/s 143(1)(a) and no u/s 143(3) and hence first proviso to section 147 did not apply in the instant case. Uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) deciding the preliminary issue relating to the validity of the assessment made by the AO under section 143(3)/147 in favour of the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. As a result of the decision rendered by me upholding the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the preliminary issue while disposing of the appeal of the revenue the cross-objection filed by the assessee raising the issues relating to the additions made by the AO in the assessment under section 143(3)/147 on merit have become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 143(3)/147.
2. Addition of ?40,00,000 under section 68 as unexplained cash credit.
3. Addition of ?80,000 under section 69C for unexplained expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 143(3)/147:
The primary issue was whether the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid. The assessee argued that there was no failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, citing various judicial pronouncements, including decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which emphasized that for reopening beyond four years, it must be established that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not independently apply his mind and relied solely on information received, which did not meet the requirement of 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the CIT(A) quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order.

2. Addition of ?40,00,000 under Section 68 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
Since the CIT(A) invalidated the reopening of the assessment, the addition of ?40,00,000 under section 68 as unexplained cash credit was not adjudicated on merits. The revenue's appeal did not specifically challenge the CIT(A)'s decision on the invalidity of the reopening, focusing instead on the procedural aspects.

3. Addition of ?80,000 under Section 69C for Unexplained Expenditure:
Similarly, the addition of ?80,000 under section 69C for unexplained expenditure incurred on payment of commission for obtaining the accommodation entry was not adjudicated on merits due to the quashing of the assessment order.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the AO did not independently apply his mind and merely relied on information received. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, noting that the grounds raised were too general and did not specifically address the CIT(A)'s detailed reasoning. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee on the merits of the additions became infructuous and was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee were both dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind by the AO and the absence of a failure by the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly.

← Previous Next →