9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1227 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - valid reason to believe - notice issued after expiry of four years - HELD THAT - Assessee has paid taxes u/s 115JB of the Act in the return of income and has shown book profit u/s 115JB. Even the AO has assessed total income in the case of assessee as per the provision of section 115JB. Furthermore the petitioner was asked specific questions regarding cash credit received as well as sundry creditors along with Name PAN address Copy of ITR and their confirmations. The petitioner had provided all the necessary details vide replies dated 15.12.2016 and 20.12.2016. The respondent thereafter being satisfied with the information supplied by the petitioner framed assessment under section 143 (3). AO therefore could not have assumed the jurisdiction to issue impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act and the impugned notice and the proceedings pursuant thereto cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Notice under Section 148 The legal framework for reopening an assessment is governed by Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, which require the Assessing Officer to have a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice on the grounds that it was based on information from the DDIT (Inv.), Panipat, without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Court found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based solely on information received from another department, without any independent inquiry or verification by the Assessing Officer. This lack of independent application of mind rendered the notice invalid. 2. "Reason to Believe" and Disclosure of Material Facts The Court emphasized that merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is insufficient, especially beyond four years, unless there is a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The petitioner argued that all transactions were conducted through banking channels and were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had provided all necessary details during the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer had accepted these details while framing the assessment under Section 143(3). Therefore, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts, and the conditions for reopening the assessment were not met. 3. Application of Law to Facts and Competing Arguments The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and was a fishing expedition. The Court agreed, noting that the reasons recorded did not demonstrate any independent application of mind or tangible material linking the petitioner to the alleged income escapement. The respondent argued that the information from the DDIT (Inv.) was verified and that the reopening was justified. However, the Court found that the verification was inadequate and did not satisfy the statutory requirements for reopening an assessment. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 due to the absence of a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The Court emphasized that the reasons recorded must demonstrate a rational connection to the belief of income escapement, which was not present in this case. In a similar case involving the same petitioner for subsequent assessment years, the Court had previously held that when the tax payable as per the reasons recorded is less than the tax paid under the assessment, the question of income escapement does not arise. This principle was applied in the present case, leading to the quashing of the notice and the proceedings. The Court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not justified and quashed the notice dated 24.03.2020 and the order dated 30.12.2020 disposing of the objections. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
