2014 (11) TMI 215 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 Whether the only requirements before issue of a notice u/s 148 are that the AO should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and the same was fully met Held that - From the reading of the copy of the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, there is no mention of date therein - the details given are only with regard to name of the bank and its branch, address of the beneficiary, instrument no., date of transaction and amount is mentioned but in the operative part of the reasons recorded, there is no mention of the nature of transaction, much less to establish that the impugned transactions were in the nature of accommodation entries in the garb of gift - the AO proceeded to record reason to believe as required for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act in a mechanical manner only after mentioning detailed reason from Investigation Wing of the Department in a CD Form without applying its independent mind and even without mentioning the date of recording of reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. In the main part of reason to believe, there is no mentioning of nature of transaction to establish and fortify the fact that the transactions were in the nature of accommodation entries - there is no mentioning of date and it can safely be presumed that the AO had not examined the assessment record of the assessee which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15.3.2005 for forming a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that there was no material on record to show that the AO had applied her independent mind in forming a belief which may result in the required reason to believe as per provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act - the CIT(A) was right in following the ratio of the decision CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court - the CIT(A) was justified and reasonable in quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act and entire reassessment proceedings Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and 148.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147.
3. Violation of natural justice due to lack of opportunity provided to the assessee.
4. Legitimacy of the additions made by the AO during reassessment.
5. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment without adjudicating the merits of the additions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and 148:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment, arguing that the only requirement for issuing a notice under Section 148 is the AO's reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, observing that the AO proceeded mechanically based on information from the Investigation Wing without independently analyzing the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not apply an independent mind and failed to mention the date of recording reasons, thus invalidating the reassessment proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147:
The revenue argued that the AO had the jurisdiction to reassess the income based on any material found during the reassessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO exceeded the jurisdiction intended under Section 147, which was limited to the reasons for the escapement of income of Rs. 4,51,000. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the AO's actions were beyond the scope of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2), thus rendering the reassessment ultra vires.

3. Violation of natural justice due to lack of opportunity provided to the assessee:
The revenue claimed that the assessee was given 14 opportunities to present relevant details but failed to do so. The CIT(A) concluded that the reassessment proceedings suffered from a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with a fair opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal supported this view, emphasizing that the reassessment was vitiated by the lack of proper opportunity and the high-handed approach of the AO.

4. Legitimacy of the additions made by the AO during reassessment:
The AO made several additions during the reassessment, including unexplained cash credits, disallowances of losses, and sundry creditors, totaling Rs. 98,80,100. The CIT(A) quashed these additions, noting that they were not related to the reasons recorded for the reassessment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the AO's additions were unrelated to the reasons for the reassessment and were made without providing the assessee an opportunity to contest them.

5. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment without adjudicating the merits of the additions:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the merits of the additions. However, since the CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings on legal grounds, the Tribunal found that the other grounds pertaining to the facts and merits of the case did not survive for detailed adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings and the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to apply an independent mind, violated principles of natural justice, and exceeded the jurisdiction intended under Section 147. Consequently, the reassessment and the additions made therein were rendered invalid.

← Previous Next →