2019 (2) TMI 813 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - reason of re-opening - Held that - As relying on BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HALDWANI 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, were not sufficient reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment.- Decided in favour of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment for assessment year 2009-10 under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the validity of the re-opening of the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment based on the grounds that the assessee had substantial income for which no return was filed. However, the Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for re-opening did not specifically indicate that the income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision quashing a similar re-opening due to lack of specific reasons. It was established that the reasons for re-opening must have a rational connection with the belief that income has escaped assessment, and in this case, the mere fact of cash deposits in the bank account did not conclusively prove income escapement.

2. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, stating that they must be examined on a standalone basis without any additions or deletions. It was highlighted that the reasons must point to income escaping assessment and not merely the need for further inquiry. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support the requirement of a direct nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief of income escapement. It was reiterated that the reasons must indicate a cause and effect relationship with income escaping assessment, and suspicion alone is not sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

3. The Tribunal further analyzed the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative, who relied on judicial precedents to support the re-opening based on bank deposits. However, the Tribunal found that the precedents cited were not directly applicable to the current case, where the sole reason for re-opening was bank deposits without a clear link to undisclosed income. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient to justify the re-opening of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, rendering all other issues on the merits of the additions in the assessment infructuous.

4. In the final judgment, the Tribunal adopted detailed reasoning to quash the re-opening of the assessment, rejecting the Revenue's contention supporting the Assessing Officer's actions. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, pronouncing the order in open court on 13/02/2019.