9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1291 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Addition u/s 68 - AO based on the information issued from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received amounts from the entry operator - HELD THAT - AO, except preparing the table of alleged accommodation entries from the details claimed to have been received from the Investigation Wing, has not at all applied his mind. From a bare perusal of the table of the alleged accommodation entries, it is evident that the share capital shown to be received is much more than the share capital, reserves and surplus reflected as per the balance sheet. Further the payments were treated as receipts. No primary independent enquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer which goes to prove that this is a case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Hence keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the propounded legal propositions, we hereby confirm the order of the CIT(A). Any decision on the merits of the case would be only be academic in nature and hence not being adjudicated. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 148: The Revenue's appeal primarily focused on the quashing of the order by the Ld. CIT (A) which declared the notice issued under Section 148 as illegal. The case was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee received amounts from an entry operator. The modus operandi involved entry operators providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries to channelize unaccounted money into regular books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) held the notice issued under Section 148 as void ab-initio, referencing judgments such as ITA vs. Dwarka Das Shah, Quality Dyeing Works vs. ITO, and United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Ld. DR argued that the reasons for reopening need not be comprehensive or detailed but should be germane to the issue on which the re-assessment is based. The Ld. DR cited the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of S. Gandhi and Ors., emphasizing that minor mistakes in reopening should be ignored, considering the broader issue of accommodation entries and information from the Investigation Wing. Conversely, the Ld. AR contended that the AO merely reiterated the information forwarded by the Investigation Wing without applying independent judgment. The AO's notice was based on incorrect information, as the amounts mentioned did not match the assessee's audited balance sheet, indicating non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the assessment on the grounds that the assessee received ?1,91,96,148 in share capital, whereas the actual share capital was significantly lower as per the audited balance sheet. The AO's notice included incorrect amounts and misinterpreted payments as receipts, demonstrating a lack of due diligence and application of mind. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court, which held that reassessment proceedings initiated without new material or independent inquiry by the AO are invalid. 2. Deletion of the Addition Made Under Section 68: The AO's addition under Section 68 was based on the premise that the creditworthiness of the lenders was not established, and the transactions appeared non-genuine. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect and non-existent information. The AO failed to independently verify the facts or conduct primary inquiries, relying solely on the information from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal emphasized that reassessment proceedings based on borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiry by the AO are invalid. The AO's failure to apply his mind and verify the facts led to the incorrect addition under Section 68. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and the addition under Section 68 was unjustified. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order that the notice issued under Section 148 was void ab-initio due to non-application of mind by the AO and incorrect information. The addition under Section 68 was also deleted, as the reassessment proceedings were based on invalid and non-existent grounds. The Tribunal reiterated the necessity for the AO to independently verify facts and apply due diligence in reassessment proceedings.
|
