2018 (10) TMI 1606 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - introduction of capital - validity of reasons - Held that - Revenue has hardly explained how and in under what circumstances, it can proceed to re-open the assessment for the subsequent year, F.Y. 2009-10 (A.Y. 2010-11). This Court is further of the opinion that there is no material to support the Revenue s premise that any infusion of capital which was made on 01.04.2009, which could, if at all, be found to be the only basis to form a valid reason as stated in the notice. In the absence of such information, what emerges is that the investment of ₹7.22 crores in the equity capital of the petitioner were related quite logically or naturally, to the previous year i.e. AY 2009-10 (FY 2008-09). In these circumstances, the re-opening of the assessment, cannot be sustained even though the Revenue may be otherwise right in contending that it was based upon tangible information. Clearly, the inaccuracy or rather a mistake in this case, affected the validity of the notice. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Re-assessment notice under Sections 142, 147, and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on information from a survey and statement of ex-Director. Validity of re-assessment notice due to alleged erroneous conclusions. Corporate veil lifting for assessing genuineness of transactions. Lack of material to support re-opening of assessment for subsequent year. Discrepancies in shareholding pattern between petitioner and subsidiary company.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a re-assessment notice issued under Sections 142, 147, and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information from a survey and a statement of an ex-Director. The reasons to believe supplied to the petitioner mentioned a significant shareholding in a related company, leading to the re-assessment notice. The petitioner contended that the re-opening of assessment for a subsequent year was based on erroneous conclusions as the shareholding in question was related to the previous year. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the re-assessment was based on tangible material outside the record, justifying the need to unveil the corporate veil for assessing the genuineness of transactions.

The Court noted discrepancies in the shareholding pattern between the petitioner and its subsidiary company, where the intermediate holding company was shown differently. Despite the information regarding the shareholding investment being clear, the Revenue failed to explain how it could proceed to re-open the assessment for the subsequent year. The Court found no material to support the Revenue's premise and concluded that the investment in equity capital logically related to the previous year, not the subsequent one.

Ultimately, the Court held that the re-assessment notice could not be sustained due to the lack of material supporting the re-opening of assessment for the subsequent year. The Court quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate and valid reasons for re-assessment to maintain the integrity of the process and protect the rights of the taxpayers.