2009 (1) TMI 313 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal by Revenue and cross-objection by assessee for asst. yr. 1999-2000 against order of CIT(A) - Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings challenged by assessee and deletion of certain additions challenged by Revenue.

Cross-objection by Assessee:
Assessee challenged initiation of reassessment proceedings, contending that proceedings were initiated without application of mind and without showing material for reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. CIT(A) observed that assessment was invalid due to violation of natural justice principles as adverse material was not confronted to assessee. CIT(A) referred to judgments supporting quashing of assessment order due to lack of confrontation of adverse material. CIT(A) decided in favor of assessee on all points except re-initiation of assessment proceedings.

Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings:
Reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings were vague and lacked specific details, leading to contention that proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind. Assessee argued that AO did not have sufficient basis to believe income had escaped assessment, as details regarding alleged accommodation entries and unaccounted funds were not provided. Assessee cited jurisdictional High Court decision to support claim that reasons for reassessment must be based on concrete information and not arbitrary assumptions.

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
Assessee challenged validity of reassessment proceedings based on lack of concrete reasons and insufficient material at the time of notice issuance under s. 148 of IT Act. AO and Departmental Representative argued that subsequent material proved Hawala transactions, but Tribunal held that validity of reassessment must be judged based on material available at notice issuance. Tribunal found reassessment proceedings to be invalidly assumed due to lack of concrete basis for alleged escaped income.

Conclusion:
Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as invalid and held them to be bad in law, based on insufficient grounds for initiation and lack of material supporting reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. Cross-objection of assessee was allowed, while appeal of Revenue was dismissed.