1995 (4) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Reopening Assessment

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of proceedings under section 147(a).
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as income from undisclosed sources.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of proceedings under section 147(a):

The department challenged the CIT (Appeals) decision, asserting that the proceedings under section 147(a) were justified due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The original assessment completed under section 143(3) had accepted loans based on confirmation letters. However, subsequent inquiries revealed discrepancies, including the loan confirmations being signed by one person for multiple creditors and the actual amounts loaned being significantly less than reported. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice and summons under section 131, but the creditors did not appear, and the assessee failed to produce them. Consequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147(a).

The CIT (Appeals) ruled that the reopening was invalid, relying on the Supreme Court decision in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, which emphasized the necessity of a true and full disclosure of primary facts by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) held that the original assessment involved thorough verification, including inspector inquiries, and thus, the reopening was merely a change of opinion.

The Tribunal, however, found that the subsequent information was specific, reliable, and indicated that the assessee had not disclosed all material facts fully and truly. This justified the reassessment under section 147(a). The Tribunal referenced the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta (HUF), which supported the reopening based on discrepancies in the assessee's statements. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, which upheld reassessment based on subsequent reliable information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts.

2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as income from undisclosed sources:

The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 1,50,000 to the assessee's income, deeming the loans as bogus based on the creditors' statements and the lack of response to summons. The CIT (Appeals) deleted this addition, arguing that the original assessment had accepted the loans as genuine after necessary verification.

The Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the assessee failed to rebut the evidence indicating the loans were bogus. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had provided the assessee with opportunities to prove the genuineness of the loans, which the assessee did not utilize effectively. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 was justified and restored the Assessing Officer's order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) was legal and valid, as it was based on specific, reliable, and relevant subsequent information indicating the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The Tribunal also reinstated the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as income from undisclosed sources, quashing the CIT (Appeals) order. The appeal by the department was allowed.