2022 (4) TMI 245 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - discrepancy between the reasons of the reopening and the conclusion in the order disposing of the objection - assessee was found to be the beneficiary of fictitious losses in equity/derivative trading - HELD THAT - In the communication the reasons for reopening of the assessment against the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2015-2016 provides that the information had been received through the insight portal of the department regarding fictitious losses in equity and derivative trading and that the assessee was found to be the beneficiary of fictitious losses in equity/derivative trading. In the third paragraph thereof it is stated that during the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee did not bring the said fact before the department and it was found that the same was a new fact/ information, which was not covered in the earlier proceeding. It appears a discrepancy between the reasons of the reopening and the conclusion in the order disposing of the objection dated 16.03.2022 that the assessee had not provided complete details of the losses from derivative which the assessee had incurred from forex trading. The respondents to file their affidavit as to why the reassessment proceeding had been initiated under Section 148 of the Act. Affidavit be filed before the next returnable date.Till the returnable date further proceeding under Section 148 initiated against the petitioner by the communication dated 31.03.2021 be not carried further.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order disposing of objections against notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the order disposing of objections against the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order raised concerns about incomplete details of losses from derivative transactions incurred by the assessee from forex trading. The Assessing Officer had received contradictory information from the department's insight portal regarding fictitious losses from derivatives, leading to the initiation of reassessment proceedings.

2. The petitioner had reported forex currency losses in the assessment returns for the relevant year. During the assessment proceedings, detailed information about these losses was provided to the department. Subsequently, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed based on the information provided by the assessee.

3. The reasons for reopening the assessment for the year in question highlighted fictitious losses in equity and derivative trading, alleging the petitioner's involvement as a beneficiary of such losses. The department claimed that this information was not disclosed during the earlier scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) and was considered new information justifying the reassessment.

4. A discrepancy was noted between the reasons for reopening the assessment and the conclusion in the order disposing of objections. The order suggested that the assessee had not furnished complete details of losses from derivative transactions related to forex trading, indicating a potential inconsistency in the department's approach.

5. The court directed the respondents to submit an affidavit explaining the rationale behind initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The affidavit was to be filed before the next returnable date, and any further proceedings based on the communication initiating the reassessment were stayed until then.

6. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 01.04.2022, indicating that further deliberations and decisions on the reassessment proceedings would take place at that time.