2020 (10) TMI 554 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - information received from the Investigation Wing - reopening a completed assessment after four years - assessee has received share application money from accommodation entry providers - HELD THAT - Specific query was raised in respect of share application money and vide reply assessee furnished all details as required by the Assessing Officer. Pursuant to the reply of the assessee and on perusal of the details, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the three share applicant companies. Not only these companies complied with the notices received u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Assessing Officer, but all of them filed confirmations, confirming the transactions along with bank statements and copies of Income Tax returns. No hesitation to hold that the observation of the Assessing Officer that the share applicant companies are non-est is without any basis. Original assessment was completed after due verification from share applicant companies and share applicant companies have been assessed to tax u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act post search and post enquiries made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case in hand, we find that reopening is nothing but change of opinion when every aspect was examined in the original assessment proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition on merits of the case challenged by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings, specifically questioning the legality of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, but the Assessing Officer later issued a notice under section 148 based on information regarding accommodation entries received by the assessee company. The notice was challenged on the grounds that it lacked proper application of mind as the alleged entry providers had already been assessed before the notice was issued. The Tribunal found that the reopening lacked any basis, especially considering the assessments of the companies in question were completed months before the notice under section 148 was issued. The Tribunal noted the absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, as required under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act.

Issue 2: Addition on merits of the case:
Apart from challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the appeal also contested the addition on merits of the case. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on the alleged accommodation entries received by the assessee company. However, upon careful examination of the assessment orders and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the observations made by the Assessing Officer lacked proper application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was merely a change of opinion, as all aspects had been thoroughly examined during the original assessment proceedings. Citing a relevant ruling of the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal set aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and subsequently quashed the assessment order framed pursuant to such notice. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment was annulled.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues involved in the appeal highlighted the lack of proper application of mind in the reassessment proceedings and the absence of any valid reasons for reopening the assessment. The decision to set aside the notice and quash the assessment order was based on the principle that the reassessment was a mere change of opinion without any new material facts.