2016 (4) TMI 531 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that - The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways(I)Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) had interpreted the provision of Section 147 on first principle and held that as per section 147, upon formulation of a reason to believe u/s 147, and following the issuance of a notice u/s 148, the AO has the power to assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment and any other income chargeable to tax. The word and used in the section is important and results in an interpretation that it is only along with income which the AO has formed reason to believe has escaped assessments that any other income can be brought to tax. Independently any other income cannot be assessed to tax. In the absence of any addition having been made on incomes which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, no addition of any other income could have been made and that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order u/s 147. The same is liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment order under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Service of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the reassessment order under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. Addition under section 68 on account of a gift received.
5. Addition under section 68 on account of unexplained deposits in the overdraft account.
6. General validity of the order passed by the authorities.
7. Any other reliefs deemed fit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the reassessment order under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the reassessment order. The assessee argued that since no addition was made on the income which the Assessing Officer (AO) had reason to believe had escaped assessment, the reassessment order was invalid. The reassessment was initiated based on the belief that interest expenses claimed against LIC commission and income from other sources were not allowable, and that the assessee had wrongly claimed indexation on the sale of UTIMEP-92. However, the AO made additions on account of unexplained gifts and cash credits, not on the issues initially recorded. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways India vs CIT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, which held that if no addition is made on the income which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, then no other income can be assessed independently. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order as the AO had no jurisdiction to tax unexplained gifts and cash credits without making additions on the issues initially recorded.

2. Service of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was ever served. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the detailed analysis provided by the Tribunal.

3. Validity of the reassessment order under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that the reassessment order was void-ab-initio. This argument was tied to the primary issue of the validity of the reassessment under section 147. Since the Tribunal found the reassessment invalid on the grounds discussed above, this issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.

4. Addition under section 68 on account of a gift received:
The assessee challenged the addition of ?5,00,000/- received as a gift, arguing that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were proven. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order on legal grounds, it did not adjudicate on the merits of this addition.

5. Addition under section 68 on account of unexplained deposits in the overdraft account:
The assessee also challenged the addition of ?15,47,000/- on account of unexplained deposits. Similar to the issue of the gift, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits due to the quashing of the reassessment order.

6. General validity of the order passed by the authorities:
The assessee claimed that the order passed by the authorities was bad in law and against the facts of the case. The Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment order on legal grounds addressed this issue.

7. Any other reliefs deemed fit:
The Tribunal did not specifically address any other reliefs but allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the primary legal issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order under section 147 on the grounds that no addition was made on the income which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment. Consequently, the AO had no jurisdiction to assess other incomes independently. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the additions under section 68 due to the quashing of the reassessment order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment order was quashed.

← Previous Next →