2021 (11) TMI 496 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO had got information through Investigation Wing that the assessee has received ₹ 1.60 crore from M/s M. M. Engineering Services - HELD THAT - Assessee had duly filed his return of income and further all the receipts could not be construed as the income of the assessee - when it has been brought to the knowledge of the AO that the information on the basis of which AO had formed belief of escapement of income was in fact a wrong information, then the very belief of the Assessing Officer of escapement of income of the assessee on the basis of such information also ceased to exist. AO, under the circumstances, should have applied his mind afresh to the fresh information brought to his knowledge. If after duly considering the records including the ITR of the assessee, the AO would have been still of the view that there was reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, then under those circumstances, the AO was supposed to record fresh reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, whereupon, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to file his objections and the Assessing Officer was accordingly supposed to proceed in accordance with law. However, in this case, despite, it was brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer that the information on the basis of which he has formed belief of escapement of income of the assessee, was wrong, still the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment on the basis of the aforesaid wrong information which was basis for formation of his belief. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has proceeded in accordance with law. Framing of the assessment on the basis of information, which was wrong information to the very knowledge of the Assessing Officer, in our view, cannot be held to be justified, nor the same can be said to be an information to form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The reassessment framed on the basis of such wrong information and wrong belief is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-dispatch of notice under Section 143(2).
3. Disposal of objections to issuance of Section 148 notice by non-speaking order.
4. Assessment being merely a change of opinion.
5. Assessment made during the pendency of earlier assessment proceedings.
6. Violation of natural justice.
7. Assessment order framed on reasons other than those on which belief for escapement of income was formed.
8. No addition made on reasons on which belief for escapement of income was formed.
9. Year of taxation.
10. Assessment order not as per provisions of Section 143(3).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have valid reasons to assume jurisdiction. The AO had formed a belief of income escapement based on information from the Investigation Wing, noting that the assessee had received ?1.76 crores and had not filed a return. However, the assessee contended that the return was filed, and the receipts were contractual, not income. The tribunal found that the AO failed to apply his mind afresh after being informed that the initial information was incorrect. The reassessment was quashed as it was based on wrong information.

2. Non-dispatch of notice under Section 143(2):
The assessee argued that the assessment order was void as the notice under Section 143(2) was never dispatched. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, focusing more on the validity of the reopening under Section 147.

3. Disposal of objections to issuance of Section 148 notice by non-speaking order:
The assessee claimed that the AO's letter rejecting objections to the issuance of the Section 148 notice was not a speaking order. The tribunal noted that the AO did not adequately address the objections regarding the filing of the return and the nature of the receipts.

4. Assessment being merely a change of opinion:
The assessee contended that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion. The tribunal agreed, noting that the AO proceeded with the reassessment despite knowing the initial information was incorrect, indicating a change of opinion rather than new information.

5. Assessment made during the pendency of earlier assessment proceedings:
The assessee argued that the assessment was invalid as it was made during the pendency of earlier proceedings. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but focused on the invalidity of the reopening under Section 147.

6. Violation of natural justice:
The assessee claimed that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing copies of the survey report, bank statements, and not issuing a show-cause notice for proposed additions. The tribunal found that the AO did not follow due process, contributing to the decision to quash the reassessment.

7. Assessment order framed on reasons other than those on which belief for escapement of income was formed:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was framed on different reasons than those forming the belief of income escapement. The tribunal found that the AO did not properly consider the correct information, leading to an invalid reassessment.

8. No addition made on reasons on which belief for escapement of income was formed:
The assessee contended that no additions were made based on the reasons for the belief of income escapement. The tribunal noted that the AO's belief was based on incorrect information, making the reassessment invalid.

9. Year of taxation:
The assessee argued that the AO did not appreciate the method of accounting and the bifurcation of receipts. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but focused on the invalidity of the reopening under Section 147.

10. Assessment order not as per provisions of Section 143(3):
The assessee claimed that the AO's order was invalid as it incorrectly mentioned the date of the Section 148 notice. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but focused on the invalidity of the reopening under Section 147.

Conclusion:
The tribunal quashed the reassessment, finding that the AO did not follow due process and based the reassessment on incorrect information. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.