2022 (6) TMI 1274 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening beyond four years - HELD THAT - We note that during the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee furnished before the AO all the documents as desired including the audited annual accounts. and accordingly framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Besides the assessee has made full disclosure of these transactions in the books of account which have been examined at length by the AO during the course of original assessment proceeding. Therefore, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 in the present case, without any reference to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all facts regarding the items in the return of income or books of account during the assessment proceeding, is not justified and is in violation to proviso to section 147. Thus reopening of assessment is invalid and is accordingly quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Jurisdictional issue regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act.
- Merits of the assessment order for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14.

Analysis:

Assessment Year 2011-12:
1. The revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A) order on merit, while the assessee contested it on legal grounds. The primary contention was the AO's jurisdiction under section 147 for reopening the assessment beyond four years without substantial material, despite full disclosure by the assessee.
2. The assessee raised jurisdictional issues in cross objections, arguing that the reassessment was void, opposed to the law, and lacked tangible material for reopening. The grounds challenged the basis of audit objection for reopening and non-supply of reasonable belief recording.
3. The Tribunal found that the assessment was reopened after four years without the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, violating the proviso to section 147. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment due to the absence of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.

Assessment Year 2012-13:
4. The issues raised in this year's appeal and cross objection mirrored the 2011-12 assessment. The Tribunal applied its decision from the previous year, favoring the assessee in the legal issue and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
5. The legal outcome from the 2011-12 assessment was applied mutatis mutandis to this year, resulting in the allowance of the assessee's cross objection and the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Assessment Year 2013-14:
6. The appeal and cross objections for this year stemmed from the AO's assessment under section 143(3)/263. However, as the Tribunal had previously quashed the order passed by the ld PCIT under section 263, rendering both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection infructuous.
7. Consequently, based on the quashing of the PCIT's order, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee for this year were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, while dismissing the cross objection for the assessment year 2013-14. The revenue's appeals for all three years were also dismissed.