2019 (8) TMI 227 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of notice u/s 148 - HELD THAT - The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form satisfaction that any income has escaped assessment. The text of the reasons recorded do virtually proves that the reasons recorded in the case in hands are no reasons in the eye of law. The so called reasons instead of being reasons to believe are solely reasons to suspect . The investment in premium paid need not necessarily come from the income. It may be out of past savings, loans, gifts, liquidation of investment or sale of another property etc. Notice under section 148 cannot be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction of the essential requirement has to be shown that there has been reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax . The reasons recorded by the learned Assessing officer should speak his mind and the basis for coming to conclusion that investment in premiums had been sourced from income, which should have been disclosed and had not been shown therefore, there was escapement of income. There must be direct nexus between the material and belief of escapement. This mental exercise must be self-evident from the reasons recorded. Reasons must be self-speaking and self-defending. The purported reasons do not show any such exercise by the learned Assessing officer and hence he wrongly acquired the jurisdiction in the matter. We are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer.
3. Service of Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.
4. Explanation of Cash Deposits.
5. Presumptions and Surmises in Reassessment.
6. Adequate Opportunity of Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice.
7. Levy of Interest under Section 234B of the Act.
8. Legality of the Assessment Order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, arguing that the reasons provided were not valid in the eyes of the law. The reasons recorded did not show any application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) and were based on incorrect assumptions. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO did not justify the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The reasons were based on the non-furnishing of sources of investment, which was not required by the previous notices issued to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded were not valid grounds for arriving at the satisfaction of escapement of income.

2. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal observed that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect assumptions and did not show any application of mind. The AO assumed escapement of income based on the non-furnishing of sources of investment, which was not required by the previous notices. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO were not valid grounds for arriving at the satisfaction of escapement of income.

3. Service of Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was void-ab-initio as it was completed without the service of any notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as the assessment orders were quashed on other grounds.

4. Explanation of Cash Deposits:
The assessee contended that there were no undisclosed sources of income and that the cash deposits in his bank account were satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as the assessment orders were quashed on other grounds.

5. Presumptions and Surmises in Reassessment:
The assessee argued that the addition was made on presumptions and surmises, ignoring the settled legal position that in reassessment proceedings, the onus is on the AO to prove that the cash deposits represent income that has escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect assumptions and did not justify the issuance of the notice under Section 148.

6. Adequate Opportunity of Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal, unjustified, and contrary to facts and law, based on incorrect assumptions and without allowing adequate opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as the assessment orders were quashed on other grounds.

7. Levy of Interest under Section 234B of the Act:
The assessee denied the levy of interest under Section 234B amounting to ?18,414 and argued that the interest was excessively and incorrectly charged. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as the assessment orders were quashed on other grounds.

8. Legality of the Assessment Order:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was bad in law and against the facts of the case. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, holding that the reasons recorded by the AO were not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded were not valid in the eyes of the law and that the AO did not apply his mind while recording the reasons.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, holding that the reasons recorded by the AO were not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded did not show any application of mind by the AO and were based on incorrect assumptions. As the assessment orders were quashed, all other issues on the merits of the addition were rendered academic and infructuous. Both appeals were allowed.