9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1411 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - additions u/s 69A - cash deposit in the bank - HELD THAT - On perusal of the aforesaid reasons supplied to the assessee and copy of the reasons recorded by the AO as per assessment records were found to be exactly the same, therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee that reasons were not provided or there was a difference in the reasons supplied and reasons recorded which were approved u/s 151 are of no help to the assessee, in deciding the assumption of valid jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Where the complete reasons were not provided to the assessee, instead only extract were provided i.e., also after expiry of a reasonable time, under such circumstances respectfully following the judgment in the case of Haryana Acrylic 2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT the assessment proceedings u/s 147 are liable to be held as bad in law. As incumbent upon the assessing officer to provide the assessee any other document or a letter or a report a/w the reasons recorded, which in the present case admittedly was not adhered to by the AO, since the copy of approval u/s 151 which has a reference to the reasons recorded and, thus, are to be mandatorily provided to the assessee, in absence of which the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 was found to be invalid. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 147, dehors the obedience of the settled position of law pertaining to compliance of the procedures is liable to be quashed, and we do so. In the result ground no. 1 of the assessee in terms of our aforesaid observations is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Legitimacy of the notice issued under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Appropriateness of additions made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Justification for sustaining the addition of Rs. 940,000 under section 69A by the Ld. CIT(A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed by the Ld. CIT(A): The appellant contended that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was "bad in law and on facts." The primary argument was that the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 were not provided to the assessee, which violated their statutory rights. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected this contention, stating that the assessee had been adequately informed and given sufficient opportunities to defend their case. However, the appellant argued that despite a specific request, the reasons for reopening were not provided until almost five months later, and even then, the approval under section 151 was not furnished. This procedural lapse was supported by precedents, including the cases of Wimco Seedlings Ltd. vs. JCIT and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, which emphasize the necessity of providing complete reasons for reopening within a reasonable time to validate the jurisdiction assumed under section 147. 2. Legitimacy of the Notice Issued under Section 147: The appellant argued that the notice issued under section 147 was invalid as the reasons for reopening were not communicated promptly. The judgment referred to several precedents, including the case of Haryana Acrylic, where it was held that failure to provide complete reasons within a reasonable time renders the reassessment proceedings invalid. The judgment also cited the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, where the Bombay High Court directed that reasons for reopening must include all endorsements and approvals, and any referenced documents should be provided to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment proceedings under section 147 were invalid due to the delayed and incomplete communication of reasons, thereby quashing the assessment order. 3. Appropriateness of Additions Made under Section 69A: The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 15 lakh under section 69A, treating it as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these deposits. However, since the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings under section 147 due to procedural lapses, the issue of additions under section 69A became academic and was not adjudicated further. 4. Justification for Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 940,000 under Section 69A by the Ld. CIT(A): The Ld. CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 940,000 under section 69A. The appellant challenged this decision, but since the Tribunal quashed the entire assessment proceedings under section 147, this issue also became academic and was not further addressed. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, primarily on the grounds that the assessment proceedings under section 147 were invalid due to procedural lapses in communicating the reasons for reopening the assessment. Consequently, all other grounds of the appeal were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The order was pronounced on 25/10/2023.
|
