2019 (12) TMI 916 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued approval granted by the Addl. CIT, Range-16, New Delhi is a mechanical and without application of mind - HELD THAT - Approval granted by the Addl. CIT, Range-16, New Delhi is a mechanical and without application of mind, which is not valid for initiating the reassessment proceedings issue of notice u/s. 148 and is not in accordance with section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, thus, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is invalid and accordingly the reopening in this is bad in law and therefore, the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the legal ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s. 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Addition of ?5 lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act
3. Admissibility of additional ground of appeal

Issue 1 - Validity of notice u/s. 148:
The appellant challenged the notice u/s. 148, claiming it to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Counsel argued that the approval granted for the notice lacked proper satisfaction and was mechanical. The appellant relied on a previous decision by ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi, requesting a similar outcome. The Department contended that the reasons recorded and approval accorded were valid under section 151 of the Act. Various case laws were cited to support the validity of reopening cases u/s. 147. Upon review, the Tribunal found the approval to be mechanical and without proper application of mind, thus invalidating the notice u/s. 148. Precedents were cited to support this decision, ultimately quashing the reassessment proceedings.

Issue 2 - Addition of ?5 lacs as unexplained cash credit:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that this addition was unsustainable and should be deleted. However, since the Tribunal primarily focused on the validity of the notice u/s. 148 and found it invalid, the issue of the addition of ?5 lacs was not extensively discussed, and the Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this matter.

Issue 3 - Admissibility of additional ground of appeal:
The CIT(A) was criticized for not admitting the additional ground of appeal raised by the appellant. However, as the Tribunal's decision primarily revolved around the validity of the notice u/s. 148, the issue of the admissibility of the additional ground of appeal was not elaborately addressed. The Tribunal dismissed the other grounds raised by the Assessee since they were not pursued during the hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Assessee's appeal by quashing the reassessment proceedings due to the invalid notice u/s. 148. The decision was based on the lack of proper satisfaction and mechanical approval, as highlighted in the relevant case laws and precedents cited during the proceedings.