2025 (1) TMI 1010 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - independent satisfaction or borrowed satisfaction of AO - HELD THAT - AO has failed to give the requisite details in the reasons recorded so as to form a requisite prima-facie belief that income has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded only refer to the information received from the credible sources that the search was carried out in case of Kushal Group and during course of search incriminating documents were found and seized and on going through the information available on Insight Portal it was found that the petitioners are one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries in form of different types of income like Long Terms Gains/Loss/Short Terms Gains/Loss and also beneficiary of unsecured loans etc. without there being any basis for forming such belief. Therefore it is clear that the AO has recorded the reasons only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction without there being any live-link between the information available on the Insight Portal and the data available on the record of the petitioners-assesses. AO cannot be said to have formed an independent satisfaction regarding the reasons recorded to re-open the assessment to come to the prima-facie conclusion that there is escapement of income.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The High Court considered the following core legal questions:

Whether the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, justifying the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Whether the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were based on independent satisfaction or merely borrowed satisfaction from external sources?
Whether the issuance of the notices was justified in the absence of a live-link between the information received and the petitioners' transactions?
Whether the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted to quash the impugned notices?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Reasons to Believe

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court examined the provisions of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which allow for the reopening of assessments if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer lacked specificity and were based on vague assertions rather than concrete evidence.
Key Evidence and Findings: The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer relied heavily on information from the Insight Portal and a search conducted on the Kushal Group, without direct evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged bogus transactions.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the reasons to believe were not substantiated by a direct link between the information received and the petitioners' financial activities.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had disclosed all relevant transactions in their returns, while the respondents contended that the information from the Insight Portal justified the reopening. The court sided with the petitioners, emphasizing the lack of independent satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the Assessing Officer did not have valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, rendering the notices invalid.

Issue 2: Borrowed Satisfaction vs. Independent Satisfaction

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced the requirement for the Assessing Officer to independently verify and satisfy themselves of the need to reopen an assessment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Assessing Officer's reasons were based on borrowed satisfaction from external sources, such as the Insight Portal, rather than an independent assessment of the petitioners' records.
Key Evidence and Findings: The lack of specific details in the reasons recorded indicated reliance on external information without independent verification.
Application of Law to Facts: The absence of a direct connection between the information and the petitioners' transactions demonstrated a failure to form an independent belief.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the information from the Insight Portal was credible, but the court emphasized the need for an independent assessment by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusions: The court held that the reasons were based on borrowed satisfaction, invalidating the reopening of assessments.

Issue 3: Live-Link Requirement

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court underscored the necessity of a live-link between the information received and the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the information from the Insight Portal did not establish a live-link with the petitioners' financial activities.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the reasons recorded were generic and lacked a specific connection to the petitioners' transactions.
Application of Law to Facts: The absence of a live-link rendered the reasons insufficient to justify the reopening of assessments.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents failed to demonstrate a direct connection between the information and the petitioners' activities, leading the court to favor the petitioners' position.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the lack of a live-link invalidated the reasons for reopening the assessments.

Issue 4: Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash administrative actions that lack legal basis.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the impugned notices were issued without proper jurisdiction, warranting intervention under Article 226.
Key Evidence and Findings: The lack of valid reasons to believe and the reliance on borrowed satisfaction justified the court's intervention.
Application of Law to Facts: The court exercised its jurisdiction to quash the notices, emphasizing the absence of legal justification for their issuance.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the respondents' argument against judicial intervention, citing the lack of jurisdictional basis for the notices.
Conclusions: The court exercised its jurisdiction to quash the impugned notices due to their lack of legal foundation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction without there being any live-link between the information available on the Insight Portal and the data available on the record of the petitioners-assesses."
Core Principles Established: The court established that valid reasons to believe must be based on independent satisfaction and a direct link between information received and the assessee's financial activities.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the impugned notices due to the lack of valid reasons to believe, reliance on borrowed satisfaction, and absence of a live-link, thereby invalidating the reopening of the assessments.

← Previous Next →