2019 (12) TMI 498 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reasons to believe - HELD THAT - AO has issued notice within 4 years and AO has recorded detailed reasons and came to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income on the ground that falsification of books of account and also manipulation of accounts for the last several years as well as the statement given by the Chairman Shri Ramalinga Raju and material evidence, which are necessary to be considered, were not at all considered by the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. After going through the reasons recorded by the AO and material available on record, we find that the AO after recording the detailed reasons, reopened the assessment and, therefore, the question of change of opinion does not arise because the assessee has not expressed any opinion at all. Thus, we find that the AO has rightly reopened the assessment. We, therefore, uphold the reopening of assessment made by the AO u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed. Addition on account of unexplained loans and advances - segregation of interest income and assessing it as income from other sources and treating the income from trading in shares as speculation income. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee on these issues are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of unexplained advances.
3. Addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).
4. Disallowance under Section 14A.
5. Classification of interest income.
6. Classification of income from trading in shares as speculation income.
7. Charging of interest under Section 234B.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The primary issue was whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was valid. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on a confessional statement from the Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL), revealing manipulation of accounts. The AO believed there was an escapement of income due to these manipulations. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that the AO had a bona fide belief about the escapement of income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO had issued the notice within four years and had recorded detailed reasons for the reopening. The Tribunal found no change of opinion since the AO had not previously considered the manipulations. Thus, the reopening was upheld.

2. Addition of Unexplained Advances:
The AO made an addition of ?20 crores as unexplained advances based on forensic reports indicating high-value cheques credited to SCSL's account. The CIT(A) directed the AO to ascertain the exact amount advanced by the appellant and other related companies. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s directions, which required the AO to establish the actual amounts advanced by the appellant and other companies. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions to assess ?12.5 crores in the appellant's hands if the exact amount could not be determined.

3. Addition of Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e):
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?12.41 crores made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend. The Tribunal did not discuss this issue further, implying agreement with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The AO disallowed ?42,92,125 under Section 14A. The CIT(A) did not specifically address this disallowance in detail, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s overall directions, which included addressing the disallowance under Section 14A.

5. Classification of Interest Income:
The AO had treated the interest income separately as income from other sources. The CIT(A) found that the appellant was an investment company, and earning interest income was part of its business income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the interest income should be treated as business income and not as income from other sources.

6. Classification of Income from Trading in Shares as Speculation Income:
The AO treated the income from trading in shares as speculation income. The CIT(A) found this incorrect, noting that the appellant was an investment company, and trading in shares was part of its business. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the AO had not identified specific speculative transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions to compute the income from trading in shares as business income.

7. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The Tribunal noted that charging interest under Section 234B was consequential in nature. The AO was directed to charge interest accordingly based on the final assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, upholding the reopening of the assessment and the directions given by the CIT(A) regarding the additions and classification of income. The Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in its entirety.