9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 224 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - proof of tangible evidence or material in respect of any undisclosed income - non application of mind by AO - Held that - AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. The reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Income Tax Department. Thus the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. See Signatures Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court) and CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (2015 (2) TMI 104 - ITAT DELHI) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of notice under Section 148. 2. Legality and validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147. 3. Validity of notice under Section 143(2). 4. Legality of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). 5. Principles of natural justice and opportunity of being heard. 6. Addition of ?15,05,250/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of Notice under Section 148: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was illegal, bad in law, time-barred, and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice based on information from the CIT (Central)-III, New Delhi, regarding accommodation entries provided by S.K. Gupta. However, it was observed that the AO did not apply his mind independently and mechanically issued the notice without verifying the information. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons for reopening were vague and not based on tangible material, making the notice under Section 148 invalid. 2. Legality and Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147: The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the CIT (Central)-III, New Delhi, about accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the AO did not establish a live link between the information and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO failed to apply his mind independently, and the reasons recorded were vague and uncertain. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decisions in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and G&G Pharma India Ltd., to conclude that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Validity of Notice under Section 143(2): The assessee contended that no valid notice under Section 143(2) was issued, rendering the assessment framed illegal. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail as it had already quashed the reassessment proceedings, making this issue academic in nature. 4. Legality of the Assessment Order Passed by the AO: The assessee argued that the assessment order was bad in law, illegal, and wrong on facts. The Tribunal, having quashed the reassessment proceedings, did not address this issue separately, as it became academic. 5. Principles of Natural Justice and Opportunity of Being Heard: The assessee claimed that the assessment order violated the principles of natural justice and was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the reassessment proceedings were already quashed. 6. Addition of ?15,05,250/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The assessee challenged the addition of ?15,05,250/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as the reassessment proceedings were quashed, making this issue academic. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, holding that the AO had not applied his mind independently and that the reasons for reopening were vague and not based on tangible material. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were deemed invalid. The Tribunal allowed all five appeals of the assesses. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 03/01/2017.
|
