2021 (10) TMI 613 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - whether Addition based on borrowed reasons? - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has simplictor taken the reasons recorded in another cases. In fact, from first page of the reasons it is mentioned that the information of accommodation entry includes A.Y. 2006-07. It can be further seen that there is a reference to some verification and disposing off the objections filed by most of the assessees against reopening of their cases u/s. 147. Taking the reasons as it is without verifying the assessee case, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee has also made bogus purchases and the same has to be treated as income of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make opinion on the basis of borrowed reasons and there is no independent application of mind and in such circumstances and facts of the case, reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and is accordingly directed to be quashed - See RAJENDER PARSAD PROP. M/S. PRIYA ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE I.T.O, WARD 63 (3) , NEW DELHI 2018 (10) TMI 143 - ITAT DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of notice issued under Section 148.
2. Addition of ?86,51,758/- on account of alleged bogus purchases.
3. Enhancement of additions to ?1,04,25,365/- by CIT(A).
4. Ex parte order passed by CIT(A).
5. Principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The primary contention was that the notice under Section 148 was illegal, void, barred by limitations, and without jurisdiction. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on borrowed reasons without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the AO had relied on information from the Investigation Wing and other authorities regarding accommodation entries provided by certain individuals. However, it was observed that the AO did not independently verify the information or apply his mind before forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including Rajender Prasad Vs. ITO, G & G Pharma India Ltd., and Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized the necessity of independent application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law and directed it to be quashed.

2. Addition of ?86,51,758/- on Account of Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The AO had made an addition of ?86,51,758/- based on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee contended that all information and evidence were provided during the original assessment, and the addition was made without proper verification. Given the Tribunal's finding that the reopening of assessment was invalid, the issue of addition on account of bogus purchases became academic. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this ground.

3. Enhancement of Additions to ?1,04,25,365/- by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) had enhanced the additions to ?1,04,25,365/-. The assessee argued that this enhancement was arbitrary and erroneous. The Tribunal, having quashed the reopening of the assessment, did not find it necessary to adjudicate this ground on merits as it became academic.

4. Ex Parte Order Passed by CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary ground of the legality of the reopening of assessment was decided in favor of the assessee.

5. Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee argued that the order passed by CIT(A) was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, having found the reopening of the assessment to be invalid, impliedly acknowledged that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid due to lack of independent application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the grounds related to the addition of ?86,51,758/-, enhancement of additions to ?1,04,25,365/-, and other related issues became academic and were not adjudicated on merits. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →