2018 (10) TMI 361 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non service of notice - Held that - We hold that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 by the AO is without proper service of notice and notice u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and reassessment proceedings are consequently liable to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the same and confirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings on the legal ground, we are not adjudicating the issues on the merits of the case. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s 148 for reassessment
2. Addition of unexplained share application money
3. Admission of additional evidence

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 for reassessment
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the Order dated 25.11.2013 for assessment year 2003-04, contending that the notice u/s 148 was validly served despite the Ld. CIT(A) holding otherwise. The Revenue argued that the notice was served at the correct address, while the AR pointed out discrepancies in the address mentioned in the notice and the actual address of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the notice was sent to an incorrect address, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to reopen the assessment as bad in law. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that valid service of notice is a jurisdictional requirement for reassessment, and since the notice was not sent to the latest address of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings were illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained share application money
The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?68,17,050 made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money. The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, citing precedents where the High Court emphasized the onus on the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions. However, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on the basis of invalid notice, the issues on the merits of the case were not adjudicated.

Issue 3: Admission of additional evidence
The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without meeting the conditions mentioned in Rule 46A. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings based on the invalid notice, the issue of admitting additional evidence was not further addressed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings on the invalidity of the notice u/s 148 and subsequent quashing of reassessment proceedings. The issues regarding the addition of unexplained share application money and admission of additional evidence were not decided due to the jurisdictional issue.