2020 (7) TMI 65 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reason to believe - reopening on the basis of information available on ITBA database - non application of mind by AO - HELD THAT - As per reasons of reopening case of the assessee was reopened on account of cash deposits in the savings bank account amounting to ₹ 25,78,850/-, however, the AO had made the addition of ₹ 13,78,850/- meaning thereby the AO has not applied his mind and therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash reopening of assessment. Resultantly the addition made in the reassessment order would stand deleted and need not be adjudicated on merit. Aforesaid view is fortified by the following decision of Tajendra Kumar Ghai vs. ITO 2017 (6) TMI 491 - ITAT DELHI wherein held belief of the AO should be based upon some specific and tangible material for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. The course adopted by the AO was wholly unjustified in recording the incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 148 for reopening assessment.
2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147.
3. Addition under section 69A for cash deposit.
4. Legality of orders passed by lower authorities.

Issue 1 - Validity of notice under section 148 for reopening assessment:
The Assessee challenged the validity of the notice under section 148, arguing that it was issued without proper approval under section 151 and without recording proper reasons. The Assessee contended that the notice was based on incorrect information and was a roving enquiry without tangible material. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision to quash the reopening of the assessment, leading to the deletion of the addition made in the reassessment order.

Issue 2 - Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147:
The Assessee raised objections regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147, citing the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2). The Assessee argued that the return of income was filed in response to the notice under section 148 within the prescribed time limit. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not followed proper procedures and had not applied his independent mind to the information received. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment, leading to the deletion of the addition made in the reassessment order.

Issue 3 - Addition under section 69A for cash deposit:
The Assessee contested the addition under section 69A for cash deposits, providing explanations supported by relevant documents. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not correctly applied his mind while making the addition. The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts, leading to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law, resulting in the deletion of the addition made in the reassessment order.

Issue 4 - Legality of orders passed by lower authorities:
The Assessee contended that the orders passed by the lower authorities were not justified on facts and were bad in law. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the reasons for reopening the assessment, found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind properly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment, leading to the deletion of the addition made in the reassessment order. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed by the Tribunal on 05.05.2020.

← Previous Next →