2014 (5) TMI 748 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act Reopening of assessment Held that - All the noticees were third parties who according to the AO did not respond and could not also be served - The replies made by the third parties are not and could not have been in the possession or control of the assessee - the assessee could not have relied upon them either before the AO or before the CIT (A) - There is nothing to show that the third parties appeared before the CIT (A) - In the absence of the third parties, the contents of the documents could not have been proved - neither the existence of the documents nor the contents were proved - The appellate authority proceeded to reverse the orders u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on the basis of documentary evidence of which neither the existence nor the contents were proved. So-called additional evidence was permitted to be adduced without giving any opportunity to the AO to examine them in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as also the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A - The finding made by the CIT(A) is equally perverse - The genuineness of the transaction was the issue to the knowledge and notice of the assessee the sale of investment to the tune of ₹ 5,51,420 but cheque deposits were more than crore - The finding of the Tribunal is based on the inadmissible additional evidence adduced by the assessee before the CIT (A) thus, the order of the Tribunal is set aside Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
2. Admissibility of additional evidence before the appellate authority.
3. Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules regarding the submission of evidence.
4. Assessment of undisclosed income based on cash deposits in bank accounts.
5. Validity of reassessment based on the belief of income escapement.
6. Judicial review of orders passed by the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal.

Analysis of Judgment:

1. The case involved the challenge of a judgment and order affirming the CIT (Appeal) decision to dismiss the appeal preferred by the revenue regarding the reopening of assessments for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The reasons for reopening were based on cash and cheque deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, leading to a belief of income escapement.

2. The appellant contended that all parties responded to notices under section 133(6) and confirmed transactions with the assessee company. However, the Revenue argued that the additional evidence submitted before the appellate authority was not presented to the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules regarding the submission of evidence.

3. The court found that the documents relied upon were from third parties who did not respond to notices and could not be served. The appellate authority reversed the orders under section 147/143(3) based on unproven documentary evidence, allowing additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A.

4. The Assessing Officer had reassessed the total income based on cash deposits in bank accounts, which the CIT (Appeal) found to be genuine. However, the court deemed this finding as based on inadmissible evidence and a misconstrued case, leading to a perverse conclusion regarding the undisclosed income assessment.

5. The Tribunal's finding that the belief of income escapement was based on erroneous assumptions of facts due to inadmissible evidence was also considered perverse. The court set aside the orders of the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal, ultimately allowing the appeal against the reassessment for both assessment years.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural rules, ensuring the admissibility of evidence, and upholding principles of natural justice in tax assessment proceedings. The decision provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment orders were not valid based on the flawed consideration of evidence and beliefs of income escapement.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Calcutta High Court covers the issues involved comprehensively, including the legal reasoning and implications of the decision on the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →