2023 (5) TMI 999 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - We note that original assessment of the assessee was complete u/s144 wherein the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases. Later on reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act and assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 - In the said reassessment proceedings, the bogus purchases was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment, therefore the same amount should not be disallowed in reassessment proceedings. Hence, addition made by Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings is not sustainable in law. Ground of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
3. Validity of notice u/s 148.
4. Addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- as unexplained credits u/s 68.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing

The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which led to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), had been remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty issue should also be remitted back for fresh adjudication.

Issue 2: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Tribunal observed that since the quantum appeal related to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) had been remitted back to the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be remitted back for fresh adjudication. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Validity of Notice u/s 148

The appellant argued that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were bad in law, as there was no new information. The Tribunal found that the original assessment had already discussed the issue of unverifiable purchases, and the reassessment proceedings were initiated after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 was not in accordance with law.

Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- as Unexplained Credits u/s 68

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted sufficient documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and had repaid the amount within the same year. Referring to the Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that no addition could be made u/s 68 as the loan was repaid in the same year. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in the reassessment proceedings amounted to double taxation, as it had already been disallowed in the original assessment. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- was deleted.

Conclusion:

The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in accordance with the law and deleted the addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- as unexplained credits. Other arguments regarding the validity of reassessment and cross-examination were rendered academic and infructuous.