2022 (4) TMI 148 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe OR reason to suspect - HELD THAT - The powers of AO to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are reason to believe and not reason to suspect . There can be no manner of doubt that the words reason to believe suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the section. As relying on ParamjitKaur 2007 (8) TMI 323 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein, making identical observations, the Hon'ble High Court held that the in the absence of sufficient material to form satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, the issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Act was not valid. In view of the above discussion, in our view, the Assessing Officer has wrongly and illegally assumed jurisdiction in this case to reopen the assessment. The reasons pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the reasons to form the belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law and the same is accordingly quashed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of reopening of assessment based on unidentified information.
3. Validity of reopening of assessment based on suspicion and surmises.
4. Validity of reopening of assessment without proper approval under section 151.
5. Continuation of proceedings initiated under section 148.
6. Justification of addition of ?16,05,300 as income.
7. Justification of addition of ?10 Lakhs from M/s Overall Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
8. Justification of addition of ?6,05,300 from M/s Goodfaith Barter Pvt. Ltd.
9. Overall justification of additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 was not validly served. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee's counsel and was dismissed.

2. Validity of Reopening of Assessment Based on Unidentified Information:
The assessee argued that the reopening of assessment was based on unidentified information without any tangible material. The tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked sufficient detail to justify the belief that income had escaped assessment. The information available was that the assessee received credits from two companies, but there was no evidence that these were bogus transactions involving shell companies.

3. Validity of Reopening of Assessment Based on Suspicion and Surmises:
The tribunal emphasized that an assessment cannot be reopened based on mere suspicion. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were found to be based on general and vague information, which was insufficient to form a belief of income escapement. The tribunal highlighted that the reasons must have a rational connection with the formation of belief.

4. Validity of Reopening of Assessment Without Proper Approval Under Section 151:
The assessee argued that no proper approval from higher authority under section 151 was taken. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as the overall reopening was found to be invalid.

5. Continuation of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148:
The tribunal found that the proceedings initiated under section 148 were not in accordance with law due to the lack of tangible material and valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.

6. Justification of Addition of ?16,05,300 as Income:
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive ?16,05,300 from M/s Goodfaith Barter Pvt. Ltd., but had paid this amount to clear an outstanding liability. The Assessing Officer's information was factually incorrect and insufficient to justify the addition.

7. Justification of Addition of ?10 Lakhs from M/s Overall Distributors Pvt. Ltd.:
The tribunal observed that there was no evidence that the ?10 Lakhs received from M/s Overall Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was unaccounted money. The amount was repaid within nine days, and there was no indication that it was brought back through shell entities.

8. Justification of Addition of ?6,05,300 from M/s Goodfaith Barter Pvt. Ltd.:
The tribunal reiterated that the assessee did not receive ?6,05,300 from M/s Goodfaith Barter Pvt. Ltd., but paid this amount. The addition was based on incorrect facts and was not justified.

9. Overall Justification of Additions Made by the Assessing Officer:
The tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were not based on reliable information or tangible material. The reopening was deemed invalid, and the assessment order was quashed. Consequently, the tribunal did not address the merits of the case as the legal issue itself was decided in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order due to the invalidity of the reopening process. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were found to be vague, based on suspicion, and lacking tangible material, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid.

← Previous Next →