2020 (12) TMI 681 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of re opening of the assessment - whether the escapement of the income, if any, came about because of non disclosure by the assessee warranting action under proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - ITAT held that CIT(A) fell in error in holding the re-assessment to be invalid - HELD THAT - From perusal of the extracted portion of the order passed by the tribunal, it is evident that the order passed by the tribunal has been passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner and well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has been set aside without assigning any cogent reasons. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the order of the tribunal and to remit the matter to decide the issue with regard to reopening of the assessment afresh by a speaking order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment for Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
2. Whether non-disclosure by the assessee warranted action under proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment
The appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act were preferred by the assessee challenging the reopening of assessments for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The tribunal had upheld the initiation of the reassessment proceedings based on the judgment of the High Court in a previous case. However, the High Court found that the tribunal had misread the previous judgment and dealt with the issue of reopening in a cursory manner. The High Court observed that the tribunal's decision was cryptic and cavalier, setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Consequently, the High Court quashed the tribunal's order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision on the issue of reopening of the assessment.

Issue 2: Non-disclosure by the Assessee
The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessments for the relevant years under Section 148 of the Act based on information regarding wrong claims made by the assessee. The revenue contended that the reassessment was valid as it was initiated due to non-disclosure by the assessee. They argued that the tribunal's reliance on prima facie opinion for reopening was sufficient and subsequent facts could be considered in deciding whether to reopen assessments. However, the assessee argued that full information regarding sales of spares and manufactured goods was provided along with the original returns of income. The assessee also highlighted that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which limits the time for reopening assessments, was applicable in this case. The High Court did not delve into this issue extensively as the matter was remitted for a fresh decision on the validity of reopening assessments.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the validity of reopening assessments for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The High Court found that the tribunal had erred in its decision-making process and remitted the matter for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of a well-reasoned approach in tax assessment matters and highlighted the significance of complying with legal provisions when initiating reassessment proceedings.