2023 (2) TMI 862 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - tribunal sustained the deletion of addition - HELD THAT - None of the findings of the fact recorded by the Tribunal have been assailed before us. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the Tribunal that the respondent/assessee was put to scrutiny with regard to the infusion of share capital and had furnished the relevant information sought by the AO when the initial assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in reaching the conclusion that this was a case of change of opinion, and therefore, the first proviso to Section 147/148 was applicable, the pre-requisites of which having not been fulfilled, re-assessment proceedings could not have been triggered. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interdict the order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial questions of law.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal, sustenance of deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, jurisdiction of reopening assessment under Section 147, change of opinion in assessment, failure to apply mind independently by Assessing Officer.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Assessment Year 2007-08, seeking condonation of a 175-day delay. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the cross objections of the respondent/assessee, leading to the sustenance of the deletion ordered by the CIT(A). The appellant/revenue contended that fresh information from the Investigation wing led to the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act, alleging the respondent/assessee's involvement in accommodation entries.

Jurisdiction of Reopening Assessment under Section 147:
The Tribunal meticulously examined the record, including the reasons for re-opening the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act. It was noted that the AO had examined the infusion of share capital and unsecured loans received by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal found flaws in the re-opening of the assessment, stating that the prerequisites under the Act were not fulfilled. The Tribunal concluded that the jurisdiction under Section 147 was not established due to a lack of failure on the part of the respondent/assessee to disclose material facts and deemed it a case of change of opinion in the assessment.

Failure to Apply Mind Independently by Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to apply his mind independently and reopened the assessment based on directions from the Director of Investigation, without forming his own reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The AO did not link the respondent/assessee to the accommodation entry provider, S.K. Jain Group, and overlooked the funds received as share capital and unsecured loans. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply his mind independently rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid, leading to the allowance of the cross objections of the respondent/assessee.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order. It was found that the respondent/assessee had provided relevant information during the initial assessment, making the reassessment a case of change of opinion. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the prerequisites for reassessment under Section 147 were not met. No substantial questions of law were raised, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the closure of the related application.