2020 (2) TMI 207 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has reopened the case of the assessee when the proceedings under section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were pending on the same issue. The ITAT Jaipur Benches 2018 (2) TMI 1635 - ITAT JAIPUR has decided this issue in favour of the assessee and set aside initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Act and consequential reassessment order, as a result thereof the grounds on merits have become infructuous. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the issue in dispute has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT Jaipur Benches (supra) - cancel the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 and consequential reassessment order

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment order under sections 143(3)/147.
2. Compliance with mandatory conditions of sections 147 to 151.
3. Service of mandatory notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1).
4. Deduction of interest paid on housing loan.
5. Calculation of loss from house property.
6. Use of first floor for business purposes.
7. Computation of rental income for the second floor.
8. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Order Under Sections 143(3)/147:
The assessee challenged the reassessment order on the grounds that it was issued without proper jurisdiction and compliance with the mandatory conditions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal noted that the issue had already been adjudicated in favor of the assessee by various ITAT Benches. The tribunal specifically referred to the ITAT Jaipur Bench's order dated 20.02.2018, which discussed the invalidity of reopening the case when proceedings under section 154 were pending on the same issue. The tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) had not concluded the section 154 proceedings before initiating the reassessment.

2. Compliance with Mandatory Conditions of Sections 147 to 151:
The tribunal observed that the AO did not comply with the mandatory conditions required for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147 to 151. The tribunal emphasized that without proper jurisdiction and compliance with these conditions, the reassessment order could not stand.

3. Service of Mandatory Notices Under Sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1):
The assessee contended that the reassessment order was invalid due to the non-service of mandatory notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1). The tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as it had already concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the pending section 154 proceedings and lack of compliance with sections 147 to 151.

4. Deduction of Interest Paid on Housing Loan:
The assessee argued that the AO erred in not allowing the deduction of ?8,01,501 paid as interest on a housing loan while calculating income under the head "House Property." The tribunal did not delve into the merits of this ground as it had already decided to cancel the reassessment proceedings, rendering this ground infructuous.

5. Calculation of Loss from House Property:
The assessee claimed that the AO incorrectly calculated the loss from house property at ?4,95,742 instead of ?13,41,638 as claimed in the return of income. Similar to the previous issue, the tribunal did not address this ground on merits due to the cancellation of the reassessment proceedings.

6. Use of First Floor for Business Purposes:
The assessee contended that the AO erred in rejecting the claim that the first floor was used for business purposes, affecting the computation of income from house property. The tribunal did not address this issue separately due to the cancellation of the reassessment proceedings.

7. Computation of Rental Income for the Second Floor:
The assessee argued that the AO incorrectly computed the rental income of the second floor for the entire period of occupation. The tribunal did not address this issue separately as it had already decided to cancel the reassessment proceedings.

8. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The assessee challenged the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as it had already concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, canceling the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 and the consequential reassessment order. Since the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid, the grounds raised on merits became infructuous. The tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the ITAT Jaipur Bench, which held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated while section 154 proceedings were pending on the same issue. The order was pronounced on 03/02/2020.