2021 (10) TMI 346 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of reasons to believe - accommodation entries receipt - assumption of existence of jurisdictional fact/incorrect fact - HELD THAT - AO if had made some preliminary enquiry after receipt of information then this kind of goof up could have been avoided. Thus in this case the AO has erroneously assumed the existence of jurisdictional fact/incorrect fact, so the reasons recorded to form the believe fails to stand the scrutiny of law, and the same was on an erroneous assumption of facts since the AO s reason to believe escapement of income was that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry provider Shri Gautam Jain Ors. Whereas in the assessment framed there is no whisper about Shri Gautam Jain and the figure of ₹ 12,33,210/- has come down to ₹ 6,16,605/-. Therefore, reason to believe escapement of income was on erroneous facts and therefore the AO did not enjoy the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and therefore the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment based on the information received.
3. Sufficiency and adequacy of reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the AO invoked the reopening jurisdiction without satisfying the essential condition precedent, i.e., recording "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on information from the Investigation Wing, alleging that the assessee received accommodation entries from Shri Gautam Jain amounting to ?12,33,210. However, during the reassessment, the AO changed the facts, citing different entities (M/s Rajat Gems and M/s Ranjan Gems) and different amounts. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening must be examined on a standalone basis and should not be altered. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's basis for reopening was on incorrect assumptions of facts, making the reopening invalid.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to Reopen the Assessment Based on the Information Received:
The Tribunal examined whether the AO had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on the information received. The AO initially reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee received accommodation entries from Shri Gautam Jain. However, during the reassessment, the AO did not mention Shri Gautam Jain and instead cited different entities and amounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment, which should be based on relevant and consistent information. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on erroneous facts and incorrect assumptions, thereby lacking the jurisdictional basis to reopen the assessment.

3. Sufficiency and Adequacy of Reasons Recorded by the AO for Reopening the Assessment:
The Tribunal highlighted the legal principles governing the reopening of assessments. It stressed that the reasons recorded by the AO must be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing. The reasons must provide a clear link between the conclusion and the evidence. The Tribunal referred to settled judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, which emphasize that the reasons must have a rational connection and direct nexus with the belief of income escapement. In this case, the Tribunal found that the AO's reasons lacked a direct nexus and were based on incorrect facts, making the reopening invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, concluding that the AO did not have valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment due to incorrect and inconsistent facts forming the basis of the "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment order was invalidated. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the addition, as the legal issue of reopening was dispositive.

← Previous Next →