2020 (8) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non disposing of the objection raised by the appellant - non-compliance of procedure - Non application of independent application of mind - HELD THAT - Objections raised by the assessee to the reasons recorded for re-opening and the re-opening itself were not disposed off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT 2012 (7) TMI 519 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT 2012 (5) TMI 146 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Even otherwise Section 151 of the Act mandates recording of satisfaction by the approving authority. In this case the satisfaction was mechanical and in fact a rubber stamp was used to state Yes I am satisfied . Thus the assessment is bad in law for want of recording proper sanction u/s 151 - Even otherwise we find that the AO has not applied his mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. He re-opened based on borrowed satisfaction. Re-opening based on incorrect, incomplete and vague facts is bad in law - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment order under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the information received.
3. Proper disposal of objections raised by the assessee before framing the assessment order.
4. Recording of satisfaction by the approving authority under section 151 of the Act.
5. Adequacy and correctness of reasons for reopening the assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Order:
The primary issue was whether the reassessment order under sections 147/143(3) was valid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds that the AO did not apply his mind to the information received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-3(1), Kolkata. The reassessment was based on "borrowed satisfaction" and not on the AO's independent judgment. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the AO had a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment based on the information provided.

2. Application of Mind by the AO:
The CIT(A) found that the AO did not independently verify the information received from the Investigation Wing. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based solely on the information from the DDIT(Inv.) without any preliminary inquiry or verification by the AO. This lack of independent application of mind rendered the reassessment invalid. The AO's reasons for reopening were deemed vague and incomplete, failing to establish a direct link between the information received and the alleged income escaping assessment.

3. Proper Disposal of Objections:
The assessee had raised objections to the reopening of the assessment, which were not disposed of by the AO before completing the reassessment. This procedural lapse made the reassessment order legally unsustainable. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing precedents that non-disposal of objections before finalizing the reassessment invalidates the process.

4. Recording of Satisfaction by Approving Authority:
Section 151 of the Income Tax Act mandates that the approving authority must record their satisfaction before granting approval for reopening an assessment. In this case, the satisfaction was recorded mechanically, with the approving authority using a rubber stamp to signify approval without any detailed reasoning. This mechanical approval process was insufficient to meet the legal requirements, rendering the reassessment invalid.

5. Adequacy and Correctness of Reasons:
The reasons recorded by the AO on both 17.03.2017 and 27.03.2017 were scrutinized. The AO's reasons were found to be based on incorrect and incomplete facts. For instance, the AO mentioned transactions with entities like M/s Mohit Textiles and Sri Biswajit Mukherjee, with which the assessee had no dealings. Additionally, the amounts stated in the reasons were inaccurate. This lack of factual accuracy and clarity in the reasons further invalidated the reassessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order. The reassessment was found to be invalid due to the AO's failure to independently apply his mind, improper disposal of objections, mechanical recording of satisfaction by the approving authority, and inaccurate reasons for reopening the assessment. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

Result:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The reassessment order was quashed, and the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld.