9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1655 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessee has taken accommodation entries - no addition was made for the item for which assessment was reopened - HELD THAT - The name of four accommodation providers which has been discussed in the reasons for reopening is not discernable in this list of seventeen entities. Therefore these concerns have not been demonstrated by the AO as connected in any manner to the four bogus concerns from whom the assessee alleged to have taken accommodation entries and the assessment of the assessee was reopened for verifying that aspect. Thus the addition made by the AO is totally unconnected with the issue for which assessment was reopened. Whether AO can make addition of any other item which was detected during the reassessment proceedings as escaped income? - Expression and also employed in section 147 cannot be read as being in the alternative. It means that if no addition is being made on an item for which assessment was reopened then Assessing Officer cannot add any other item. He ought to have reopened the assessment again for the purpose of adding those escaped item because that creates an independent circumstance for proceeding against an assessee. There might be various aspects of limitation etc. would come to the rescue of assessee. Thus we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. Decided against revenue.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include: (a) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,21,30,650/- on the ground that no addition was made for the issue for which the assessment was reopened. (b) Whether, under Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer can make additions on grounds other than those for which the reassessment was initiated, if no addition is made on the original grounds. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Deletion of Addition by CIT(A) Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which permits the reassessment of income if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The provision also allows for the assessment of any other income that comes to notice during the reassessment. The precedents considered include the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited, the Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. CIT, and the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohmed Junded Dadani, which collectively establish that if no addition is made on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, other income cannot be added. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer could make additions unrelated to the reasons for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the initial reason for reopening was the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 18,00,000/-, which was not added in the reassessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the addition of Rs. 8,94,55,000/- as unexplained credits was unrelated to the original reason for reopening. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening involved alleged transactions through multiple layers of shell companies, ultimately benefiting the assessee. However, the entities involved in the Rs. 8,94,55,000/- addition were not connected to the initial Rs. 18,00,000/- accommodation entry. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal precedents to determine that since no addition was made for the Rs. 18,00,000/- entry, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions based on this principle. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for the validity of the additions, while the assessee relied on precedents to argue that the additions were improper. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, citing uniform judicial interpretation of Section 147. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions since they were unrelated to the grounds for reopening the assessment. (b) Scope of Explanation 3 to Section 147 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Explanation 3 to Section 147 allows the assessment of any other income that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings. However, judicial interpretation by various High Courts has clarified that this provision cannot be used to add unrelated income if no addition is made on the original grounds. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the phrase "and also any other income" in Section 147 as requiring an addition on the original grounds for reassessment before other income can be added. The Tribunal highlighted that the phrase cannot be read in the alternative, as established by the precedents. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's additions were unrelated to the original reason for reopening, which was the Rs. 18,00,000/- accommodation entry. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal precedents to the facts, concluding that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to add other income was contingent on making an addition for the original reason for reopening. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the Assessing Officer could add other income was rejected based on the consistent judicial interpretation of Section 147. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, affirming that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to add unrelated income without making an addition for the original issue. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that under Section 147, if no addition is made on the grounds for which the assessment was reopened, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions for other income that comes to notice during the reassessment. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The Tribunal concluded that the additions were unrelated to the original reason for reopening the assessment and thus lacked jurisdictional validity.
|
