2021 (2) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Validity of reasons to be believe - material difference between the reasons extracted in the assessment order and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment found in the assessment record - HELD THAT - On perusal of the assessment records, we found that the reasons of reopening of assessment are materially different from the reasons extracted in the assessment order. In our considered view, when an assessment is reopened and reassessment order is framed, the entire quarrel revolves around the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Since, there is difference in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as found in the assessment records from the reasons extracted in the assessment order, neither the assessee could defend its case properly nor the appellate authorities can adjudicate the matter. In the in the interest of the justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to frame the assessment as per reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and supply the copy of the same reasons to the assessee, so that the assessee can defend itself. Legal grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 68 - We find that the appellant has furnished plethora of evidences which have not been considered by the AO. We find that there is not even a whisper of the evidences filed by the assessee during the course of the reassessment proceedings, neither in the assessment order nor in the order of the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, again in the interest of justice and fair play we restore this issue to the files of the AO. AO is directed to examine and verify all the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment completed without complying with legal requirements of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of sec 153C of the Act to seized documents from a third party.
3. Initiation of reassessment proceedings without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).
4. Deficiency in the reason recorded for income escaping assessment.
5. Mechanical satisfaction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr CIT) under section 151 of the IT Act.
6. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act.
7. Rejection of evidences filed by the appellant without conducting any enquiry.
8. Addition of a percentage of alleged accommodation entries as arbitrary and without basis.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the validity of the assessment, arguing it was completed without complying with legal requirements under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the assessment was void ab initio and should be quashed. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the assessment order, leading to the appellant's grievance.

2. The appellant raised concerns regarding the applicability of section 153C of the Act to seized documents from a third party. The appellant argued that the seized documents did not belong to them, and the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the IT Act.

3. The appellant alleged that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without the AO applying an independent mind to the material provided by the Investigation Wing of the department. The appellant argued that the reasons recorded for income escaping assessment were vague and lacked essential details, indicating non-application of mind by the AO.

4. The appellant highlighted deficiencies in the reasons recorded for income escaping assessment, stating that essential details of accommodation entries were not included. The appellant contended that the AO's actions were based on mere suspicion and surmise, lacking primary information or material in the reasons.

5. The appellant contested the mechanical satisfaction by the Pr CIT under section 151 of the IT Act, arguing that it was a procedural infirmity that should invalidate the reassessment proceedings. The appellant claimed that the sanction under section 151 was based on mechanical satisfaction and did not meet the legal requirements.

6. The appellant challenged the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act. The appellant argued that they had discharged their initial onus by explaining the nature and source of the credits with requisite documents, proving identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of the transaction during assessment proceedings.

7. The appellant contended that the AO rejected the evidences filed without conducting any enquiry, shifting the onus unfairly onto the revenue. The appellant argued that the AO's actions were in contravention of the principles of natural justice by relying on material adverse to the appellant without proper confrontation.

8. The appellant objected to the addition of a percentage of alleged accommodation entries as arbitrary and without basis. The appellant argued that the action of the assessing officer in making this addition was erroneous and needed to be quashed. The appellant sought relief from the adverse actions taken by the AO during the assessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →