2016 (6) TMI 43 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - whether the notice is barred by limitation? - Held that - The undisputed fact is that the notice u/s. 148 was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year in all the three cases. On the perusal of reasons recorded which are extracted hereinafter, we find that there is no whisper or an allegation that the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material fact necessary for assessment in its return of income. Thus assessee having fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment as required by the AO, the precondition for invoking the proviso to s. 147 was not satisfied and therefore, AO acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing notice under s. 148 beyond the four year period mentioned in s. 147. Thus reopning is bad - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
Challenges to the deletion of addition on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s Kashish Impex Pvt. Ltd. in multiple assessment years. Legality and validity of notice issued under section 148 in each case.

Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases:
The appeals and cross-objections were filed against the orders passed by the CIT (A) regarding the addition of amounts made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Kashish Impex Pvt. Ltd. The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals of the assessee, leading to further challenges. The AR raised various contentions, including the limitation of the notice, proper recording of reasons, compliance with Section 151, and jurisdictional issues concerning the re-opening of assessments. The AR argued that the reasons recorded were not proper as per Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

2. Legal Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The AR contended that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, lacked proper reasons, and was issued by a different officer than the one who recorded the reasons for re-opening. Additionally, it was argued that the satisfaction for re-opening was mechanical, without proper application of mind. The AR highlighted discrepancies in jurisdiction, emphasizing that the re-opening should have been done by the Assessing Officer of the ward and not by another authority. The AR relied on judicial precedents to support the argument that the notice was issued without jurisdiction.

3. Judicial Precedents and Reasons Recorded:
The Tribunal analyzed the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 in each assessment year. It was observed that there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment in the reasons provided. Citing judgments by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that for re-opening assessments beyond the prescribed period, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. As the assessee had fully disclosed all necessary facts, the Tribunal concluded that the re-opening was without jurisdiction.

4. Decision and Conclusion:
After considering all arguments and precedents, the Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessments was not valid due to the lack of proper reasons and failure to establish non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the cross-appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 26th April 2016, upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO in connection with the alleged bogus purchases.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies involved in challenging the addition of amounts and the validity of notices issued under Section 148, emphasizing the importance of proper compliance with legal provisions and judicial precedents in tax assessments.

← Previous Next →