2021 (1) TMI 11 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - AO reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee partners have introduced capital - reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment not supplied to the assessee - HELD THAT - During the assessment proceedings, the AO has accepted the facts that the amount of ₹ 7,90,266/- is actually the opening capital of the partners as on 01.04.2008 which includes interest on capital. Once this fact is accepted then the question arises about the validity of the reopening of the assessment. Since the Assessing Officer has not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessees therefore, the objections if any to be raised by the assessee remained undecided. Further the AO has made the addition on account of unexplained investment by estimating ₹ 3 lacs out of 6 lacs introduced by each assessee. Only in the case of Shri. Shashi Bala Singh, the AO made the addition of full amount of ₹ 6 lacs towards the unexplained investment for introduction of the capital in the partnership firm. Therefore, the impugned orders of AO and CIT(A) are set aside and all these matters are set remitted to the record of the AO with the direction to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessee and then decided the objections to the filed by the assessee against the notice under section 148 - Assessee appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment based on incorrect facts and unexplained investments.
2. Addition of unexplained investments in partnership firm.
3. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act.
4. Consideration of objections against the notice under section 148.
5. Assessment of income in partnership firm.

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment based on incorrect facts and unexplained investments:
The five assessees, partners in a partnership firm, challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) before the CIT(A) for unexplained investments. The AO reopened the assessment based on incorrect facts regarding capital introduction by the assessees in the firm. The AO made additions of varying amounts in each partner's case. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide reasons for reopening the assessment, leading to the assessees being unable to raise objections. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), directing the AO to supply the reasons for reopening and allow the assessees to file objections. The AO was instructed to re-adjudicate the issue considering explanations and sources of funds provided by the assessees.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained investments in partnership firm:
The AO added amounts to the income of the partners for unexplained investments in the partnership firm. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the AO's actions, especially in the case of one partner where the full amount was added as unexplained investment. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and CIT(A), emphasizing the need for a proper re-evaluation based on valid reasons and explanations from the assessees.

Issue 3: Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act:
The assessees argued that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as it was based on incorrect facts. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's failure to provide reasons for reopening hindered the assessees' ability to raise objections. The Tribunal stressed the importance of valid reasons for reopening assessments and directed the AO to address objections raised by the assessees.

Issue 4: Consideration of objections against the notice under section 148:
The assessees requested an opportunity to raise objections against the notice under section 148, which the AO failed to provide due to not disclosing the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' right to challenge the validity of the notice and directed the AO to allow objections to be raised and considered separately.

Issue 5: Assessment of income in partnership firm:
The AO assessed the income of the partners based on capital introduced in the partnership firm. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessment process, particularly in the lack of proper consideration of explanations and sources of funds provided by the assessees. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair assessment based on accurate information and directed the AO to re-evaluate the income assessment in light of the assessees' submissions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a fair and transparent assessment process based on accurate information and valid reasons for reopening assessments.

← Previous Next →