9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and grossly erred in re-opening assessment which is in violation of mandatory jurisdiction conditions stipulated under the Act - HELD THAT - As decided in M/S. SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 2018 (12) TMI 912 - ITAT DELHI Tribunal was of the considered view that the re-assessment proceeding was on the basis of non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer and since the re-opening of the assessment was not accepted by the Tribunal, order framed under Section 263 of the Act was quashed. Since the present assessment order is framed on the very same reasons, which were considered by the Tribunal (supra) while quashing the order, once the reasons have not been accepted by the Tribunal, the same cannot be held to be good for the present assessment. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) the re-opening of the assessment is held to be invalid and unlawful and accordingly, quash the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Merits of the addition of ?20.40 lakhs in the assessment. Issue 1: Validity of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148: The appeal challenged the order of the CIT (Appeals) on two grounds. Firstly, it contested the validity of the order due to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction and erred in reopening the assessment. The appellant referred to a previous Tribunal order related to the assessment year 2007-08 concerning the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal in the previous order found that the re-assessment proceeding was based on non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, leading to the quashing of the order framed under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the re-opening of the assessment was invalid and unlawful, as the reasons for it were not accepted. Therefore, the current assessment order based on the same reasons was deemed invalid and quashed. Issue 2: Merits of the addition of ?20.40 lakhs in the assessment: Secondly, on merits, the appellant argued that the addition of ?20.40 lakhs in the assessment was against the facts of the case. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer in initiating the re-assessment proceedings. It was noted that there was no new material beyond what was originally examined by the Assessing Officer, rendering the re-assessment proceedings invalid and bad in law. Citing various legal precedents, including decisions by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification of information before initiating re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the information received from the Investigation Wing, indicating a lack of application of mind in recording correct facts for reopening the assessment. Consequently, the re-assessment order was deemed invalid and not in accordance with the law, leading to the quashing of the assessment order based on the same reasons as in the previous invalid re-assessment. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was invalid and the addition in the assessment was not sustainable due to the lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order was quashed based on these findings.
|
