2022 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - original assessment in petition filed u/s. 264 - HELD THAT - We find that this Tribunal in the case of Sam Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (2) TMI 1142 - ITAT DELHI had considered the same set of facts in related concerns where Ld. CIT had quashed the original assessment in petition filed u/s. 264 and again case was reopened on the same ground u/s.148 and quashed the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. We find that exactly same reasons recorded were there as have been incorporated in the impugned assessment order. Similarly the Tribunal in the case Shreya Infra Developers 2021 (8) TMI 1267 - ITAT DELHI following the case of Sam Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the order of the CIT (Appeals) under Section 264 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued exactly on same reasons recorded for reopening the assessment therefore the reassessment order cannot be sustained and same was quashed. Since the Tribunal in two case exactly on same set of facts had quashed the assessment passed under Section 147 therefore respectfully following the same in this case also the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act is quashed. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order on unexplained expenditure and deposits.
2. CIT(A) relying on inadequate submissions, failure to conduct independent inquiry, and ignoring court judgment.
3. Jurisdictional issues in framing reassessment order under Section 147/143(3).
4. Original assessment annulled, case reopened under Section 147, and assessment completed again.
5. CIT(A) allowing appeal on merits, deleting all additions.
6. Tribunal's consideration of similar cases quashing reassessment orders under Section 147.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A) order concerning unexplained expenditure and deposits added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, prompting the Revenue's appeal.
2. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law by relying on inadequate submissions, failing to conduct an independent inquiry, and disregarding a court judgment, leading to the deletion of the additions.
3. The jurisdictional issues arose regarding the framing of the reassessment order under Section 147/143(3) without complying with mandatory conditions, as argued in the Cross Objections.
4. The original assessment was annulled, following which the case was reopened under Section 147 based on the same issues, leading to the completion of the assessment at the initial figure.
5. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal on merits, noting that the assessee provided complete details of debits, credits, loans, interest earned, and tax deductions, leading to the deletion of all additions.
6. The Tribunal, considering similar cases where original assessments were quashed and reassessment orders were challenged, held that the reassessment order under Section 147 could not be sustained. Citing precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, allowing the Cross Objection filed by the assessee and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.