2021 (6) TMI 895 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition made on protective basis - investment was made in AY 2012-13 and not in AY 2011-12 - HELD THAT - Specific paras 2(vi) to (viii) and Para 3 of the above Report clearly address the departmental position. In the light of these facts and submissions, it is deemed appropriate to allow the appeal of the assessee on the aforesaid grounds as the substantive addition has attained finality. At the same time, it is clarified that the factum of the cheque dated 31.03.2011 of ₹ 20 lacs in favour of M/s. KOC Industries Ltd. stated to be cleared in 2012-13 assessment year is kept open for consideration in the said appeal and is not being considered or decided in the present appeal as the present appeal is being decided only on the basis of the fact that substantive addition has attained finality. In the circumstances, protective addition cannot be sustained. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex. The appeal, accordingly, is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 147/148.
2. Legality of protective assessment.
3. Clarification on investment made in a different assessment year.
4. Dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds.
5. Dismissal of appeal on protective basis.
6. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
7. Vagueness in the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The ITAT Chandigarh heard three appeals pertaining to the 2011-12 assessment years with identical issues and arguments. The CIT(A) had confirmed the protective assessment made by the AO due to unexplained investment by the assessee. However, the ITAT found that the protective addition could not be sustained as the substantive addition had already been made in the hands of another entity. The ITAT allowed the appeal based on the finality of the substantive addition and directed verification of the cheque clearance issue for the assessee.
2. In another appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds and protective basis, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained and the sources of investment were not clarified. The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and vague, lacking specific details on the delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT set aside the order and directed the CIT(A) to provide specific reasons for the delay and to verify the finality of the substantive addition before passing a new order.
3. The ITAT allowed the appeal in the third case, noting that the facts and circumstances were similar to a previous case where the appeal was allowed. The ITAT relied on the decision in the previous case and allowed the appeal in this case as well.
4. Overall, the ITAT found issues with the protective assessments and the dismissal of appeals on various grounds. The ITAT emphasized the importance of clear and specific reasoning in judicial orders and directed the lower authorities to provide detailed justifications for their decisions. The appeals were allowed or restored for further proceedings based on the ITAT's analysis and directions.