2017 (5) TMI 835 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - reopening after the expiry of four years - approval from competent authority - non independent application of mind - Held that - As per the provision contained in Section 151 of the Act, the reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can be done only after the satisfaction of the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Chief Commissioner but not on the approval of the Addl. Commissioner as has been done in this case. Thus the reopening beyond 4 years has been done by getting the approval of Addl. Commissioner and not from the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Pr. Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was invalid. Also this case has been reopened by the AO only on the basis of the information gathered from DIT(Inv.), New Delhi and not by applying his own mind. Therefore, the reopening was not valid - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction for initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction Challenge:
The appeal was against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30.05.2014. The grounds raised by the assessee challenged the legality of the proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. The AO initiated the reassessment based on information regarding accommodation entries received by the assessee. The AO issued notices under Section 148 and 142(1) of the Act, leading to an ex-parte assessment at an income of ?73,11,000. The assessee contested the jurisdiction for reopening the assessment, but the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's actions.

2. Legal Arguments:
The assessee argued that the initiation of proceedings by issuing the notice under Section 148 was flawed as it lacked approval from the proper authority, citing Section 151 of the Act. The reopening was solely based on information from the Investigation Wing, without the AO's independent assessment, which was deemed unjustified. The assessee referenced legal precedents to support their contentions.

3. Tribunal's Findings:
The ITAT noted that the reopening beyond four years required approval from specific authorities as per Section 151 of the Act. The approval obtained from the Addl. Commissioner was deemed inadequate, as it should have been from the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner. Citing a similar case, the ITAT emphasized the necessity of proper authority approval for reopening assessments. Additionally, the reopening based solely on external information without the AO's independent assessment was considered invalid, following the principle of applying mind to pre-reopening materials.

4. Conclusion:
Consequently, the ITAT held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was invalid due to inadequate authority approval and lack of independent assessment by the AO. The reassessment framed by the AO was declared invalid, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal against the reassessment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the grounds of challenge, legal arguments presented, the tribunal's findings, and the ultimate conclusion regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings.