2021 (9) TMI 11 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO jurisdiction for reopening the concluded assessment - notice beyond the prescribed period of 6 years - Addition u/s 68 on unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT - As in the case before us the notice u/s. 148, had been served on the assessee for the first time on 25.06.2013 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which expired as on 31.03.2013, therefore, respectfully following judgment of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra 2019 (7) TMI 941 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we are of the considered view that the A.O. had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the concluded assessment of the assessee company and passed the reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 24.03.2014. Accordingly, we herein in the backdrop of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. u/s. 147 of the Act quash the reassessment order passed by him u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Principle of Natural Justice
2. Order Passed Under Section 143(3) of the Act is Bad in Law
3. Reopening of Assessment is Bad in Law
4. Addition Under Section 68 of the Act
5. Interest Charged Under Section 234B of the Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Principle of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appellant argued that the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the A.O. should be held as ab-initio-void and bad in law. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but focused on the procedural aspects of the notice and service under section 148.

2. Order Passed Under Section 143(3) of the Act is Bad in Law:
The appellant argued that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act is bad in law. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance, especially the service of notice under section 148, which is a prerequisite for a valid reassessment under section 147.

3. Reopening of Assessment is Bad in Law:
The appellant contended that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was invalid. The Tribunal focused on whether the notice under section 148 was validly issued and served within the prescribed time limit. It was found that the notice dated 19.03.2013 was dispatched to an old address and returned by postal authorities. The notice was later handed over to the appellant's representative on 25.06.2013, beyond the prescribed period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making it barred by limitation. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment, rendering the reassessment order void.

4. Addition Under Section 68 of the Act:
The appellant challenged the addition of ?13,41,97,470/- under section 68 of the Act, which was treated by the A.O. as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal did not need to address the merits of this addition separately, as the reassessment order itself was quashed due to invalid jurisdiction.

5. Interest Charged Under Section 234B of the Act:
The appellant contested the interest charged under section 234B amounting to ?4,33,64,642/-. Similar to the addition under section 68, this issue was not separately adjudicated, as the reassessment order was quashed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 24.03.2014, due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. The notice under section 148 was not validly served within the prescribed time limit, rendering the reopening of the assessment invalid. Consequently, the other contentions regarding the validity of the additions and interest charged were left open and not adjudicated. The appeal was allowed in terms of the Tribunal's observations on the invalid jurisdiction.

← Previous Next →