2025 (1) TMI 866 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment for want of valid approval u/s 151- assessee introduced its undisclosed money through accommodation entries - assessment period is happened to be beyond four years - HELD THAT - We put up specific question to the department to indicate any such approval granted by the learned prescribed authority after having applied its mind than simply accepting the AO s proposal in mechanical manner which is not sustainable in law as per CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 1334 - SC ORDER No such approval has either been discussed or filed in the case file satisfying the foregoing statutory condition of application of mind by the learned competent authority. Further no approval was obtained from Ld. PCIT in terms of Section 151 of the Act in the instant case. AO has admittedly recorded his reopening reasons of the assessee having received accommodation entries from the five above stated entities and it latter turned out in the course of assessment that the said loan amount had come only from one of them, namely, Bay Inland Finance Pvt. Ltd. This being the case, AO s reopening reasons, even if held as carrying valid approval (which is not so in the instant case), hardly satisfies the clinching test of being based on the tangible material and therefore, not sustainable in law going by Indo Arab Air Services 2015 (10) TMI 2383 - DELHI HIGH COURT We further quote Hindustan Liver Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that there is no scope of any addition/deletion or substitution in the AO s reopening reasons and validity thereof has to be decided as they were recorded at the first instance. We accordingly accept the assessee s legal arguments challenging the validity of the impugned reopening and reject the Revenue s stand supporting the same in very terms. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• The validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• The necessity of a valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening the assessment.
• The implications of the absence of tangible material for reopening the assessment.
• The effect of quashing the reopening on other additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 Explanation 3 of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Reopening of Assessment

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessments is governed by Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court in NTPC Vs. CIT and other precedents like CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. have established the need for tangible material and proper approval for reopening.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons for reopening must be based on tangible material and should not be mechanical. The absence of valid approval from the PCIT when required renders the reopening invalid.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were not backed by tangible material and lacked proper approval from the PCIT.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles to find that the reopening was not sustainable in law due to the lack of tangible material and valid approval.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the reopening was valid was rejected based on the absence of tangible material and proper approval.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and unsustainable in law.

Issue 2: Effect of Quashing Reopening on Other Additions

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 Explanation 3 allows for the assessment of other incomes that come to light during reassessment proceedings. However, precedents like Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT establish that if the original reason for reopening is invalid, other additions cannot be sustained.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that once the reopening itself is quashed, all other additions made during the reassessment proceedings must also be quashed.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the sole reason for reopening was invalid, and thus, other additions had no legal basis.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that without a valid reopening, other additions cannot stand.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention that other additions should be sustained was rejected based on established legal principles.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that all other additions made during the reassessment proceedings must be quashed as well.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "We accordingly accept the assessee's legal arguments challenging the validity of the impugned reopening and reject the Revenue's stand supporting the same in very terms."
• Core Principles Established: The necessity of tangible material and valid approval for reopening assessments; the invalidity of other additions if the reopening itself is quashed.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reopening of the assessment and all other additions made during the reassessment proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for reopening assessments, particularly the need for tangible material and valid approvals. The judgment reinforces the principle that if the basis for reopening is invalid, all subsequent actions and additions are also invalid.