2022 (9) TMI 179 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained credits u/s 68 - treating the LTCG as not a genuine transaction - grievance of the assessee that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 is not in accordance with law hence, vitiated - HELD THAT - The assessee has not filed any supporting evidences regarding notice u/s 148 being defective and also in respect of the transaction which is treated to be not genuine by the authorities below. In the absence of any supporting evidences by the assessee, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed hence, rejected. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Issues:
1. Assessment of income discrepancy
2. Validity of notice under Section 148
3. Legality of notice under Section 143(2)
4. Treatment of Long Term Capital Gains
5. Addition of commission on capital gain
6. Allegations of circular trading or price rigging
7. Disregard of submissions by the Assessing Officer
8. Reliance on investigation wing's report
9. Natural justice and independent verification
10. Re-opening of assessment and unexplained credits

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the assessment of income where the assessee disputed the assessment of their income at a higher amount than declared. The appellant argued that both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in assessing the income at a higher figure. The appellant sought the deletion of the aggregate additions made to their income.

2. The appellant contested the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, claiming it was based on conjectures and surmises without valid reasons or tangible information. The appellant argued that the assumption of jurisdiction through this notice was incorrect and should be deemed bad in law.

3. The legality of the notice issued under Section 143(2) at the time of filing the return was challenged by the appellant. They argued that this notice was against the judgments of coordinate Benches of Hon'ble ITAT and suffered from non-application of mind. The appellant sought the quashing of this notice and deletion of consequential additions.

4. The Assessing Officer had made an addition to the appellant's income by treating legitimately earned Long Term Capital Gains as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, leading to the appellant's request for the deletion of this addition.

5. An additional issue was the inclusion of commission on the long-term capital gain, which the appellant deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unjust. The appellant sought the deletion of this commission amount from the assessment.

6. The appellant disputed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, alleging they were based purely on surmises and conjectures without any material evidence linking the appellant to alleged circular trading or price rigging. The appellant requested the deletion of these aggregate additions.

7. The Assessing Officer was accused of disregarding the detailed submissions filed by the appellant and relying solely on information from the investigation wing without providing the appellant with the material relied upon. The appellant argued that this disregard of submissions rendered the additions made by the Assessing Officer unlawful.

8. Similar to the previous point, the appellant contended that the Assessing Officer had not provided the appellant with the opportunity for cross-examination of the person whose testimony was relied upon. The appellant sought the deletion of the aggregate additions made based on this lack of opportunity.

9. The appellant challenged the reliance on the report/information from the investigation wing, claiming that the initiation of proceedings was incorrect, mechanical, and lacked application of mind. The appellant requested the deletion of the aggregate addition and a declaration that the initiation of proceedings was bad in law.

10. Finally, the appellant argued that the order was vitiated on the grounds of natural justice as the Assessing Officer had relied on information without independent verification. The appellant sought the deletion of the aggregate addition based on this violation of natural justice principles.

In the end, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the findings of the lower authorities regarding the treatment of Long Term Capital Gains and the validity of the notices issued.

← Previous Next →