2023 (1) TMI 418 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe - HELD THAT - The jurisdictional ingredients for reopening assessment were not available with the concerned assessing officer. The conclusion reached by us is fortified by the view taken in the following judgments Kelvinator of India Limited 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT Suren International (P.) Ltd. 2013 (5) TMI 414 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT DELHI Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. According to us, no substantial question of law arises, in the present appeal, for our consideration.

Summary

Issues:
Reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2009-2010 based on alleged failure to disclose all material facts.

Analysis:
1. The appellant/revenue alleged that the respondent/assessee used Client Code Modification (CCM) facilities to register losses in share transactions. The appellant claimed that the share broking entity, AATIPL, facilitated illegal transfer of losses and profits to clients, including the respondent.

2. Despite filing his return for AY 2009-2010 and undergoing scrutiny, the respondent's assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer sought information on transactions with AATIPL, and the respondent provided a document showing a loss of Rs.1,82,10,431.54.

3. The appellant initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, alleging failure to disclose all material facts. The appellant argued that information received from the respondent's broker was not disclosed, justifying the reopening of the assessment.

4. The respondent contended that all material facts were disclosed during the initial assessment, as evidenced by the information provided to the assessing officer. The respondent's counsel highlighted the absence of any mention of the previous assessment order in the reasons to believe or the reassessment order.

5. The Court noted that the reopening was based on a statement by a director of AATIPL, without giving the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine. Citing relevant case law, the Court concluded that the jurisdictional requirements for reopening the assessment were not met.

6. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The judgment emphasized the importance of fully disclosing material facts and highlighted the need for proper adherence to procedural requirements in reassessment proceedings.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.