9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe v/s suspicious - notice beyond jurisdiction being without any 'reason to believe' and ' satisfaction' of AO or of the superior authority who accorded approval in a mechanical manner - HELD THAT - It is evident from the reasons recorded that at the stage of issue notice under section 148 Assessing Officer was suspicious on the source of the cash deposits and, therefore, he wanted to investigate further to find out the actual source of the cash deposits. At the stage of issue of notice, the Assessing Officer was not sure whether income had escaped to tax or not. No notice under section 148 can be issued merely on such suspicion. There has to be a reasonable material before the Assessing Officer on the basis of which a reasonable person can make requisite belief. In the instant case, there is lack of reasonable material to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped tax. Under the circumstances, the action of the AO of reopening assessment in exercise of the power under section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we quash the re-assessment proceeding initiated in the case of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition made under section 68 of the Act. 3. Admissibility of additional ground raised by the assessee. Issue 1: Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appeal challenged the notice issued under section 148, alleging it was beyond jurisdiction as it lacked 'reason to believe' and 'satisfaction' of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings based on information that the assessee deposited cash in a bank account. The assessee argued that the notice was for roving inquiries, not valid reasons. The High Court held that reopening assessments for fishing inquiries is impermissible. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer indicated suspicion rather than a reasonable belief of tax evasion. The Tribunal concluded that the notice lacked reasonable material to support a belief of tax evasion, thus quashing the reassessment proceedings. Issue 2: Addition made under section 68 of the Act: The assessee contested the addition of ?18.59 lakhs under section 68, arguing it was not applicable and the statement relied upon was recorded without the assessee's presence for cross-examination. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's suspicion did not constitute valid grounds for issuing a notice under section 148. As the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition made under section 68. Issue 3: Admissibility of additional ground raised by the assessee: The assessee sought to admit an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice under section 148. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, considering it a legal issue without the need for fresh facts investigation. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal allowed the additional ground, as it was purely legal and all facts were on record. The assessee's contention regarding the jurisdiction of the notice under section 148 was upheld, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated based on a notice lacking valid reasons to believe income tax evasion. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the addition made under section 68 due to the quashing of the reassessment. The additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice was admitted and upheld, emphasizing the need for a reasonable basis for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
