2022 (4) TMI 276 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee submitted that the AO failed to supply reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessee - HELD THAT - From the record it is seen that the AO has not recorded in the assessment order that the reasons for reopening were supplied to the assessee. Since the reasons for reopening goes to the root of the case and the assessee has legal right to make objection against reopening of the assessment, this being a valuable legal right of the assessee, the statutory authority cannot ignore the same. Therefore, we hereby set aside the impugned assessment order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO to frame the assessment afresh after providing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and disposing of the objection, if any. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer would provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A)
2. Addition of income without proper appreciation of facts
3. Discrepancy in income reflected in Form 26AS
4. Timing of passing the assessment order
5. Requirement of notice u/s 143(2)
6. Verification and examination before reopening the case
7. Furnishing of evidence regarding source of investment and interest income
8. Relevance of maintaining books of accounts
9. Opportunity to cross-reference case laws
10. Ignoring the assessee's reply
11. Clarity on the section under which the assessment order was passed
12. Delay in passing the appellate order

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on the grounds of being bad in law and against natural justice principles. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, a crucial legal right. As this omission violated the assessee's rights, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after providing the necessary reasons and allowing the assessee a fair hearing.

2. The assessee contested the addition of income without proper appreciation of facts. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the income reflected in Form 26AS and the income declared in the return. The case was reopened based on investments made by the assessee, leading to the assessment of additional income. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order indicates a need for a thorough reevaluation of the facts and proper consideration of the submissions made by the assessee.

3. The discrepancy in the income reflected in Form 26AS was a crucial issue in the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing reasons for reopening the assessment, emphasizing the assessee's right to challenge such decisions. The failure to address this discrepancy and provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case led to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order for a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

4. The timing of passing the assessment order was also a point of contention. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the date the case was fixed for hearing and the date the assessment order was passed. This discrepancy raised concerns about the fairness and procedural integrity of the assessment process, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and allow for a reassessment with proper adherence to legal requirements.

5. The issue of notice u/s 143(2) was raised, highlighting a mandatory requirement under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order indicated a failure to comply with this requirement, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in the assessment process.

6. The appeal also raised concerns about the verification and examination conducted before reopening the case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts and proper verification procedures before initiating reassessment. The failure to conduct such verification procedures led to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order for a fresh assessment with proper verification and examination.

7. Another crucial issue was the lack of evidence regarding the source of investment and interest income. The Tribunal noted the absence of such evidence and the failure to provide it during the assessment proceedings. This lack of evidence raised questions about the validity of the assessment, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order for a reassessment with proper consideration of the evidence.

8. The relevance of maintaining books of accounts was also discussed in the appeal. The Tribunal noted the contention regarding the necessity of maintaining books of accounts, especially in relation to the elapsed time since the transactions in question. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order indicated a need for a reevaluation of this issue and proper consideration of the relevant legal principles.

9. The appeal highlighted the need for the opportunity to cross-reference case laws cited in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the importance of providing such opportunities to the assessee for a fair and informed decision-making process. The failure to afford this opportunity raised concerns about the fairness of the assessment process, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and allow for a reassessment with proper consideration of case laws.

10. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of ignoring the assessee's reply submitted during the proceedings. The failure to consider and address the assessee's submissions raised concerns about procedural fairness and the adequacy of the decision-making process. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment order indicated a need for proper consideration of all relevant submissions and responses in the reassessment process.

11. Clarity on the section under which the assessment order was passed was another issue raised in the appeal. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the sections mentioned in the assessment order and the demand notice, highlighting a lack of clarity and consistency in the assessment process. This lack of clarity raised concerns about the procedural integrity of the assessment, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order for a reassessment with proper adherence to legal provisions.

12. The delay in passing the appellate order was also a significant issue in the appeal. The Tribunal noted the substantial gap between the last hearing date and the date of the order, raising concerns about the timeliness and efficiency of the decision-making process. This delay raised questions about the procedural fairness and efficiency of the appellate proceedings, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and allow for a reassessment with proper adherence to legal timelines and requirements.

← Previous Next →