2022 (6) TMI 637 - AT - Income Tax

Scope of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 - Benefit of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiae) proposed to be denied - addition on account of Cash deposited in the Bank account - AO has not made any additions and nor even discussed the issue on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. - HELD THAT - The Courts on various occasions have held that when on the ground on which reopening of assessment was based, no addition was made by Assessing Officer, then Assessing Officer could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v Lark Chemicals (P.) Ltd 2018 (10) TMI 382 - SC ORDER . held that where High Court having noticed that order passed consequent to reassessment, had not confirmed addition attributable to reasonable belief of Assessing Officer while issuing reopening notice, and set aside the said reassessment order, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. In the recent case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 2022 (3) TMI 524 - ITAT MUMBAI held that where AO recorded reasons on basis of which reassessment was initiated, but did not make any addition in reassessment proceedings, in such case primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment would fail and reassessment could not be treated as a valid order. Again in ACIT v. Everest Education Society 2021 (2) TMI 223 - ITAT PUNE ITAT held that where reasons recorded and notice issued under section 147/148 was with respect to underutilization of income of assessee trust for which there had been no addition made, but Assessing Officer made addition on account of 'anonymous donation' under section 115BBC, Assessing Officer having acted beyond his jurisdiction, and therefore Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly directed Assessing Officer to delete addition so made. Unexplained cash deposits in bank account - As no addition was made by Ld. Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee, which was the basis on which reassessment was initiated for the captioned year. Now, therefore once the Revenue has accepted the assessee's contentions in respect of the cash deposits, and has not made any addition on the basis of which reassessment was re-opened, and have proceeded to make additions on entirely different set of issues not forming part of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, the issue for consideration is whether additions made during reassessment proceedings can be sustained. In our considered view, in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Pr. CIT v Lark Chemicals (P.) Ltd. supra and jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani 2013 (2) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Assessing Officer is precluded from making the afore-said additions made in reassessment proceedings. In our view, once having accepted the assessee's version regarding cash deposit of Rs. 89,60,505/-, wherein Ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition on that count in reassessment proceedings (in fact, this aspect of cash deposit of Rs. 89,60,505/- does not even find mention in the entire reassessment order), the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer on other grounds not finding part of reasons for reopening assessment, are liable to be set-aside. Having held that additions made during reassessment proceedings deserve to be set aside on grounds of jurisdiction, we are not going into the individual grounds with respect to merits of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer.
2. Entitlement to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Justification of levy of interest under section 234A and 234B, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Validity of reopening of assessment and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer:
The appellant challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that no addition was made on the ground on which the reassessment was based. The appellant cited legal precedents to support the contention that if no addition was made on the basis for reopening, the Assessing Officer could not add amounts on other grounds. The Tribunal referred to various court decisions, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing that additions made during reassessment proceedings must be directly linked to the reasons for reopening. In this case, the reassessment was initiated based on cash deposits, but no additions were made on that specific ground. As a result, the Tribunal held that the subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable due to lack of jurisdiction, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act, contending that as a branch of the Indian Red Cross Society, it was entitled to the exemption based on a letter issued by the CBDT in 1975. However, the Assessing Officer denied the exemption, stating that the appellant, a blood bank, did not qualify as an institution providing medical facilities. The Tribunal noted the Assessing Officer's concerns about the appellant's surplus income and philanthropic activities. Despite the appellant's arguments and reliance on the CBDT letter, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) upheld the addition to the total income. However, due to the jurisdictional issue discussed in Issue 1, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue.

Issue 3: Justification of levy of interest under section 234A and 234B, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant contested the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B, as well as the intimation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of these specific issues in the judgment summary, as the primary focus was on the validity of the reassessment and subsequent additions. However, it can be inferred that since the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the jurisdictional issue, the levies of interest and penalty may also be impacted by the overall decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee primarily on the grounds of the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that additions during reassessment must be directly linked to the reasons for reopening the assessment. The issues related to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiae) and the levies of interest and penalty were not extensively discussed due to the jurisdictional aspect of the case.