2019 (7) TMI 1980 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment made on protective basis - Substantial question of law - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly the court has to consider as to whether a substantial question of law arises in the context of reasoning of the ITAT in holding the deletion of protective assessment. What is apparent is that the AO in this case proceeded without furnishing any reasoning and added amounts to assessee s account imposing tax on it purely on protective basis after the substantive additions in respect of each amount which were made at third parties end. CIT(A) in our opinion was correct in his analysis noticing that as against documentary evidence available only some additions could be sustained even in respect of such third parties. Consequently in the absence of any reason to involve the present assessee which had sold the lands to the third party and against whom there was no allegation of withholding material or suppression of facts nor was anything incriminating recorded no protective assessment could have been made. No substantial question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against re-assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act
2. Validity of protective assessment and its deletion by CIT (A)
3. Grounds of appeal not addressed by ITAT

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the appeal by the revenue against the orders of the ITAT on two counts. Firstly, it pertained to re-assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. Secondly, it concerned the Appellate Commissioner's order directing the cancellation of the assessment made on a protective basis. The CIT (A) had directed the deletion of amounts brought to tax on a protective basis, emphasizing the lack of sustainability of such additions. The Court noted that the AO proceeded without providing any reasoning and imposed taxes on the assessee purely on a protective basis after substantive additions were made in relation to third parties. The CIT (A) correctly analyzed the situation, highlighting that only some additions could be sustained even for third parties based on available documentary evidence.

2. The Court further delved into the issue of the validity of the protective assessment and its deletion by the CIT (A). It was observed that the AO made the protective assessment without any substantial grounds or evidence against the present assessee, who had no allegations of withholding material or suppression of facts. The Court agreed with the CIT (A) that no protective assessment should have been made against the present assessee, as there was no incriminating evidence or basis for such an action. The reasoning provided by the CIT (A) in deleting the protective assessment was found to be valid and legally sound.

3. The High Court also examined the contention that the ITAT did not address the grounds of appeal or the reasoning of the CIT (A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment. While acknowledging the need to consider if a substantial question of law arises, the Court found that the AO proceeded without proper reasoning and imposed taxes on a protective basis without sufficient cause. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in this context, affirming the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the protective assessment.

4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law emerged from the case. The Court upheld the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the protective assessment made by the AO, emphasizing the lack of grounds or evidence against the present assessee for such an assessment. All pending applications were disposed of, bringing the matter to a close.