2015 (10) TMI 2166 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - receipt of accommodation entries - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that - As decided in Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court the 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. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Consolidation of appeals against separate orders of CIT(A) for AY 2004-05, legality of notice u/s 148, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147, validity of impugned assessment order, addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68, principles of natural justice, quashing of reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. Consolidation of Appeals: The Tribunal consolidated two appeals against separate orders of CIT(A) for AY 2004-05 due to identical and common issues involved. The consolidated order focused on ITA No. 4444/Del/2014 for convenience.

2. Legality of Notice u/s 148: The Assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 was illegal, bad in law, and lacked jurisdiction. The argument was based on the absence of a live link between the information obtained and the belief formed by the AO, highlighting deficiencies in the reasons recorded for reopening.

3. Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147: The Assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as illegal and bad in law. The contention was supported by the argument that the AO mechanically issued the notice without proper verification or tangible evidence, leading to a lack of justification for reopening the assessment.

4. Validity of Impugned Assessment Order: The Assessee argued that the impugned assessment order was illegal, wrong on facts, and against the principles of natural justice. The AO's failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to be heard was highlighted as a violation of natural justice principles.

5. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68: The Assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The argument was centered on the lack of verifiable documentary evidence to support the cash credits received by the Assessee.

6. Quashing of Reassessment Proceedings: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, decided in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Citing a relevant High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence and a valid basis for reopening assessments.

7. Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings also reflected a commitment to upholding principles of natural justice, ensuring that assessment procedures are conducted fairly and in compliance with legal requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both Assessees' appeals, emphasizing the importance of legal grounds, evidence, and adherence to procedural fairness in assessment proceedings. The detailed analysis of each issue highlighted the significance of legal principles and precedents in determining the validity of assessments and reassessment proceedings.