2015 (10) TMI 798 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - Held that - After hearing both the parties and considering the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court wherein held that reassessment proceeding were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money during the financial year 2002-03 as stated in the Annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assesee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income.Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. There was no dispute that the company, S, had a paid-up capital of ₹ 90 lakhs and was incorporated on January 4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to be quashed. As above issue is exactly the similar to the issue involved in the present appeal we quash the reassessment proceedings. - Decided in favor of the Assessee .

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in passing appellate order without proper opportunity or appreciation of facts.
2. Validity of enhancement made under sec. 148 without compliance to provisions of sec. 251(i)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Legality and jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings without tangible evidence.
4. Justification of sustaining addition under sec. 68 for unexplained credits in the Books.
5. Legality and justification of enhancement on unexplained share application money.
6. Compliance with legal procedures and opportunity to the assessee in reassessment proceedings.
7. Validity of lower authorities' orders on facts and law.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s order for lack of proper opportunity and appreciation of facts. The appellant argued that the enhancement made under sec. 148 was not in compliance with legal provisions, questioning the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in contemplating such enhancement without proper basis. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) failed to apply proper mind in making the enhancement, which was not supported by the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under sec. 148.

2. The legality and jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings were questioned by the appellant, citing the absence of tangible evidence or material regarding undisclosed income. The appellant argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without satisfying the requirements of Section 147 of the Act, as observed in a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal, after considering the precedents, quashed the reassessment proceedings in favor of the Assessee.

3. The issue of sustaining addition under sec. 68 for unexplained credits in the Books was raised by the appellant. The AO had made an addition of a specific amount as unexplained credits, which the CIT(A) sustained. The appellant contended that the basis of addition was illegal, arbitrary, and lacked proper appreciation of facts, emphasizing the absence of evidence and opportunity for clarification.

4. Similarly, the appellant challenged the enhancement made on unexplained share application money, arguing that the entire basis of the addition was without proper appreciation of facts and opportunity to the assessee. The appellant highlighted the lack of evidence in possession of lower authorities and the absence of an opportunity for clarification, questioning the justification for such an enhancement in reassessment proceedings.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the orders and relevant precedents, decided in favor of the Assessee on the issue of reassessment proceedings, citing a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, as they were found to be similar to the issue addressed in the precedent, thereby ruling in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

6. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, considering the legal issues raised and the precedents cited in support of the Assessee's claims. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with legal procedures and ensuring proper opportunities for the assessee in reassessment proceedings, ultimately deciding in favor of the Assessee and quashing the reassessment proceedings based on the legal precedents and lack of tangible evidence.