2018 (3) TMI 658 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - validity of reasons to believe - Held that - As nothing can be gathered from a perusal of the reasons to believe that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for his assessment, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O after a lapse of a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in order to disturb the concluded assessment of the assessee framed under Sec. 143(3) on 24.12.2009, cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. We thus finding ourselves to be in agreement with the well reasoned view taken by the CIT(A), therefore, uphold his order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
3. Addition of ?15,97,22,639/- on account of non-genuine purchases and expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Sec. 147:
The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer (A.O) reopened the assessment based on recommendations from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV(1), Mumbai, without an independent application of mind. The CIT(A) noted that the reasons to believe did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Consequently, reopening the assessment after a lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid. The CIT(A) also observed that the reassessment was based on information about bogus purchases for subsequent years (F.Ys 2009-10 to 2011-12) and not for the year under consideration (A.Y 2006-07), making the reopening invalid.

2. Failure to Disclose Fully and Truly All Material Facts:
The A.O alleged that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, citing statements from the assessee's directors and employees admitting to bogus purchases and expenses. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no material fact specific to A.Y 2006-07 that was not disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that mere inferences drawn from facts pertaining to subsequent years could not justify reopening a concluded assessment after four years.

3. Addition of ?15,97,22,639/- on Account of Non-Genuine Purchases and Expenses:
The A.O made an addition of ?15,97,22,639/- based on unverifiable purchases and a disclosure statement from the assessee. However, the CIT(A) noted that the reassessment was initiated on the ground of bogus purchases amounting to ?17,40,27,652/-, but no such addition was made in the reassessment order. Instead, the A.O made different additions based on subsequent statements and documents, which were not part of the original reasons to believe. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reassessment could not be sustained if the addition was not based on the reasons recorded for reopening.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed that the reassessment was invalid due to the absence of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts and the reliance on subsequent years' information for reopening the assessment. The addition of ?15,97,22,639/- was also deemed unsustainable as it was not based on the original reasons for reopening.

← Previous Next →