2020 (11) TMI 609 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - whether no recording in the reason for re-opening that there was failure on the part of the assessee truly and fully in disclosing material facts required for the assessment? - HELD THAT - As relying on M/S. PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. 2018 (11) TMI 479 - ITAT KOLKATA and M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD. 2020 (1) TMI 685 - ITAT KOLKATA we hold that the re-opening is bad in law, arbitrary, erroneous since no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee fully and truly in disclosing material facts as stipulated by the first provision of section 147 of the Act is present in the reasons recorded for such reopening. AO failed to satisfy the precondition of statutory provisions as discussed above for usurping the jurisdiction and therefore, the entire proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. We find no justification in such re-opening. The same has no legs to stand upon and hence the entire re-assessment proceeding is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of ?3,79,25,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
3. Addition of ?79,71,424/- on account of suppression of income based on gross profit ratio.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Sections 147/148:

The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that it was not in accordance with the law. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 27-03-2014, and the notice for reopening under Section 148 was issued on 24-03-2018, after the expiry of four years. The statutory provisions under Section 147 require that for reopening after four years, there must be an allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reasons only mentioned the deposit of ?3.41 crores in cash, which needed verification. Since there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts, the reopening was deemed unjustified and void ab initio.

2. Addition of ?3,79,25,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:

The AO added ?3,79,25,000/- as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee under Section 68. The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. However, the AO rejected the assessee's explanation and made the addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Since the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment, it did not delve into the merits of this addition.

3. Addition of ?79,71,424/- on Account of Suppression of Income Based on Gross Profit Ratio:

The AO also added ?79,71,424/- on account of suppression of income based on the gross profit ratio of the assessee's total turnover. The assessee contested this addition, stating that the calculation was arbitrary and not based on factual evidence.

Again, as the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment, it did not address this issue on its merits.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it did not satisfy the statutory conditions under Section 147. Specifically, there was no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceeding was declared void ab initio and quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal did not address the other grounds on their merits due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.