2022 (5) TMI 1348 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment was reopened beyond 4 years - AO reopened the assessment based on the information received from investigation wing that the assessee is also one of the beneficiaries of pre arranged bogus long term capital gains - HELD THAT - There is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish all necessary material for the purpose of assessment. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the ratio laid down in the above said decisions and passed order saying that the reassessment was initiated only to verify the genuineness of the exemption claimed in the original return. Suspicion cannot be the basis for reassessment and more so when the reassessment is governed by the proviso to sec.147 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the ratio laid down in USHA EXPORTS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2019 (12) TMI 1210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and quashed the reassessment proceedings as void-ab-initio. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Validity of notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment beyond 4 years; Consideration of material evidence for long term capital gains; Applicability of legal precedents in reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Validity of notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment beyond 4 years:
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 beyond 4 years. The AO reopened the case based on information about alleged bogus long term capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) held that suspicion alone cannot justify reopening an assessment and emphasized the need for concrete evidence as per section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal concurred with this view, citing legal precedents and the requirement for failure to disclose material facts for reassessment. The reassessment was deemed void-ab-initio due to lack of evidence of income escapement and failure to meet jurisdictional conditions.

2. Consideration of material evidence for long term capital gains:
The revenue raised concerns about inconsistencies in the transactions related to long term capital gains claimed by the assessee. They argued for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order based on these inconsistencies and material evidence such as stock exchange actions and financials of the scrips. However, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that all relevant facts were disclosed in the original return, and the AO had already completed the assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal noted that the reopening was solely for verifying the genuineness of exempt income, and without concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged bogus transactions, the reassessment was deemed invalid.

3. Applicability of legal precedents in reassessment proceedings:
The Tribunal extensively referenced legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, emphasizing the importance of the four-year limitation for reopening assessments. The judgments highlighted the necessity of failure to disclose material facts for reassessment beyond four years. The Ld.CIT(A) considered these precedents in quashing the reassessment proceedings, stating that suspicion alone cannot justify reassessment under section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, affirming the CIT(A)'s order to quash the reassessment proceedings due to lack of concrete evidence and failure to meet jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments beyond four years. The legal precedents and provisions under section 147 of the Act were crucial in determining the validity of the reassessment in this case.