2024 (10) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - legality and validity of the notice issued u/s 148 - assessee has entered into financial transactions exceeding the taxable limits - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner who is a partner of the partnership firm in name and style of M/s. Bansal Petroleum had disclosed all the deposits made in the bank account which is the only information available with the respondent department for arriving at a conclusion of forming the reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment. From the details placed on record, in form of the balance sheet, profit and loss account as well as the partnership deed etc. it is clear that the petitioner and the partnership firm has disclosed the deposit made in the bank. This fact is further fortified from the reply to the summons u/s 133 (1A) which is placed on record along with the reply filed by the petitioner raising the objections which, clearly shows that all the details were submitted in response to such summons and therefore the respondent AO could not have assumed the jurisdiction on the basis of the information, without there being any fresh tangible material to show that the income has escaped the assessment. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice u/s 148 for reopening the assessment is not tenable in the eye of law. The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment.
3. Adequacy of reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment.
4. Consideration of objections filed by the petitioner.
5. Alleged non-disclosure of financial transactions by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:

The petitioner challenged the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arguing that it was issued without jurisdiction and based on borrowed satisfaction. The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all deposits made in the bank account, which was the only information available with the respondent department to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court concluded that the notice was not tenable in law and quashed it.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to Reopen the Assessment:

The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction based on suspicion reflected in the order rejecting objections. The court found that the Assessing Officer had no fresh tangible material to justify reopening the assessment. The court emphasized that the information relied upon was already disclosed by the petitioner, and thus, the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment was not validly assumed.

3. Adequacy of Reasons for the Belief that Income has Escaped Assessment:

The respondent argued that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment based on the financial transactions exceeding taxable limits. However, the court found that the reasons provided were not adequate, as the petitioner had already disclosed the transactions in question. The court held that the belief formed by the Assessing Officer was not based on any new material, rendering the reopening of the assessment unjustified.

4. Consideration of Objections Filed by the Petitioner:

The petitioner submitted objections against the reopening, explaining that cash deposits were from the sale of petrol and were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The court noted that the objections were disposed of by the respondent without adequately considering the explanations provided. The court held that the objections raised were valid and should have been taken into account before proceeding with the reopening.

5. Alleged Non-disclosure of Financial Transactions by the Petitioner:

The respondent alleged that the petitioner did not truly disclose the quantum of financial transactions. The court, however, found that the petitioner had provided all necessary details during the scrutiny assessment, and the transactions were reflected in the partnership firm's books. The court concluded that there was no non-disclosure on the part of the petitioner that warranted reopening the assessment.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, as the reopening of the assessment was found to be without jurisdiction and not supported by adequate reasons. The court emphasized the importance of having fresh tangible material before forming a belief that income has escaped assessment. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →