9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 808 - AT - Income TaxReopening u/s 147/148 - addition as deemed income u/s 69A - HELD THAT - Comparing the reasons for reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2007-2008 and 2012- 2013 2017 (9) TMI 1229 - ITAT DELHI , it is clear that A.O. has recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment which are factually incorrect, contradictory and vague. A.O. did not verify the report received from Investigation Wing and did not apply his mind to the information as well as facts of the case. In A.Y. 2007-2008 on the identical reasons, the Division Bench of the Tribunal did not approve the reopening of the assessment in the matter and quashed the same vide Order Dated 19.09.2017 (supra). The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee for A.Y. 2007-2008 (supra). There is no link between material and formation of opinion that income escaped assessment. There is no independent application of mind to the information received from Investigation Wing and no prima facie opinion have been formed, therefore, re-assessment is invalid - all the additions stand deleted. Appeal of the assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Addition of ?21,28,020 as deemed income under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of the Assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-2013. The reasons for reopening were based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding a search operation on the AEZ Group, revealing substantial cash payments made by investors, including the assessee, for property bookings. The A.O. believed that the assessee had made cash payments of ?88,50,000 apart from the ?32,00,000 paid through banking channels, leading to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment. The assessee argued that the reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and inconsistent with the reasons recorded for A.Y. 2007-2008. The Tribunal noted several contradictions in the reasons recorded for both years, such as discrepancies in the amounts and dates of payments. Additionally, it was observed that the A.O. did not apply his mind to the information provided by the Investigation Wing, and the reasons recorded were vague and contradictory. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision for A.Y. 2007-2008, where it had quashed the reassessment proceedings on similar grounds. It was held that the A.O. had not independently verified the information received and had not formed a prima facie opinion, making the reopening invalid. The Tribunal relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court in cases like Pr. CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd., Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., and Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., which emphasized the need for the A.O. to apply his mind to the information and form a belief that income had escaped assessment. 2. Addition of ?21,28,020 as Deemed Income under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961: The A.O. made an addition of ?21,28,020 under section 69A, treating it as unexplained investment. This amount was derived from the difference between the alleged cash payment of ?88,50,000 and the amount already covered in the assessment for A.Y. 2007-2008 (?67,21,980). The assessee contended that the addition was unjustified as it was based on incorrect and inconsistent facts. The Tribunal, after quashing the reopening of the assessment, also set aside the addition of ?21,28,020. It concluded that since the reopening itself was invalid, all subsequent additions based on the invalid reopening were also to be deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2012-2013 and deleting the addition of ?21,28,020 under section 69A. The decision was based on the finding that the reasons for reopening were factually incorrect, inconsistent, and showed non-application of mind by the A.O., making the reassessment proceedings invalid and bad in law.
|
