9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 445 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - undisclosed share capital - whether assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 was by Ld. AO was in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act? - HELD THAT - The Section mandates that the case can only be reopened after expiry of four years only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary. The assessee has disclosed the fact of receipt of ₹ 60,00,000/- towards the share capital in the regular return filed which has been scrutinized u/s. 143(3). In the reasons recorded for reopening, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned anything with regard to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts. This matter has been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NDTV Ltd. Vs DCIT 2020 (4) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT , in the case of BPTP Ltd. 2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company 2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of RMP Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (11) TMI 402 - ITAT NEW DELHI relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Courts and held that the Assessing Officer has to specifically record reasons with regard to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Thus we hereby quash the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s.147. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 147/148. 2. Application of Section 68 regarding share application money/share capital. 3. Sustaining of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. Non-compliance with principles of natural justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 147/148: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the legality of reopening the assessment under Section 147/148. The assessee argued that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 by the AO was in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening were based on information gathered from a search operation conducted on Mr. Pradeep Jindal, and the AO used Section 148 instead of Section 153C, which the assessee claimed was void ab initio and an error of jurisdiction. The assessee contended that the reasons recorded were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. The AO failed to consider the regular assessment framed under Section 143(3) dated 08.02.2013, indicating non-application of mind. Moreover, the reasons were non-communicative and lacked comprehension, failing to link the assessee’s transactions with Mr. Pradeep Jindal. The assessee also argued that the approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was mechanical and not valid in the eyes of law. The alleged information from the investigation wing was not placed on record, and the sole witness, Mr. Pradeep Jindal, was not offered for cross-examination, violating the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the GKN Driveshaft case. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and that the reopening after four years required specific mention of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The AO did not mention any such failure in the reasons recorded, and this omission was fatal to the validity of the reopening. The Tribunal relied on several judgments, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that the absence of specific allegations regarding the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts rendered the reopening invalid. 2. Application of Section 68 Regarding Share Application Money/Share Capital: The assessee challenged the application of Section 68 by the AO, arguing that the provisions could not apply to the share application money/share capital merely based on the investigation wing’s directions without independent examination. The addition of ?60 lakhs was made without legally admissible documents on record, and no meaningful enquiry was made from the shareholder’s bank or income tax officer. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition under Section 68, as it quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of invalid reopening under Section 147. 3. Sustaining of Additions Made by the AO: The assessee argued that the additions made by the AO were without basis and sustained merely on probabilities. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order without appreciating the evidence on record and without offering cross-examination of the back witness. The Tribunal, having quashed the reassessment proceedings, did not find it necessary to adjudicate on the merits of the additions. 4. Non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee contended that the assessment was unlawful and violated the principles of natural justice, as Mr. Pradeep Jindal was not offered for cross-examination despite requests. This non-compliance was sufficient to strike down the assessment framed. The Tribunal noted the lack of adherence to natural justice principles but primarily quashed the reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 due to the AO’s failure to record specific reasons regarding the assessee’s failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the additions under Section 68 or other grounds, as the primary issue of invalid reopening was decisive.
|
