2022 (4) TMI 682 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained investment Addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT - Admittedly in this case the assessee has not filed the return of income and the assessee has also admitted the fact that it had made investment in company, namely, Brahaspati Iron Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Therefore non filing of return of income and having an information regarding investment made by the assessee would be sufficient for the AO to reopen the assessment for verifying the genuineness of the investment and source of such investment - no reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) in respect of the reopening of the case. Hence, ground of the assessee s appeal are dismissed. Unexplained investment - Assessee has brought on record certain evidence that goes to prove that the amount was received from one of its Director, who herself is an income-tax assessee and filed her return of income. AO should have very well verified from the return of the concerned Director regarding source of such amount given to the assessee company. AO has also not stated as to what action was taken in the case of Director of the company. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned transaction was executed between two parties i.e. assessee company and its Director. Director is the giver of the amount in the transaction and the assessee company is the recipient of the amount. Hence, the Assessing Officer ought to have investigated from both the parties for verifying the veracity of the transaction. The assessee has discharged its primary burden by furnishing the source of the investment. Under these facts it was open to Assessing Authority to make further investigation. In the absence of bringing any adverse material regarding creditworthiness of the Director and genuineness of the transaction addition made and sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the addition of ?16,00,000/-.
2. Applicability of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Alleged violations of principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148.
5. Limitation period for serving notice under Section 148.
6. Deeming addition based on incorrect address.
7. Justification for the addition based on identity and source of deposit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Addition of ?16,00,000/-:
The appellant challenged the addition of ?16,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) as illegal and arbitrary. The investment was duly entered in the audited books of account and payment was made through a regular bank account. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence that the amount was received from one of its Directors, who was an income tax assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) should have verified the source from the Director's return of income. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding it unjustified.

2. Applicability of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant argued that Section 69 was inapplicable as the investment was duly recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to investigate the creditworthiness of the Director and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee had discharged its primary burden by furnishing the source of the investment. In the absence of adverse material, the addition was deleted.

3. Alleged Violations of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the assessment violated principles of natural justice, as the information received from JCIT Indore was not provided, and no opportunity was given for compliance with notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal found that the AO had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the reopening of the case was justified based on the information received and the non-filing of the return of income.

4. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 148:
The appellant challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing it was based on erroneous facts and borrowed satisfaction without verification. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, citing that the AO had sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The AO had duly applied his mind to the information received and invoked Section 147 rightly.

5. Limitation Period for Serving Notice under Section 148:
The appellant argued that the assessment was barred by limitation as no notice under Section 148 was validly served by 31st March 2017. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, as the reopening was based on valid reasons and the AO had followed due process.

6. Deeming Addition Based on Incorrect Address:
The appellant contended that the addition was based on a notice sent to the wrong address of the investee company. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient reasons to reopen the assessment based on the information received and the non-filing of the return of income by the assessee.

7. Justification for the Addition Based on Identity and Source of Deposit:
The appellant argued that the identity and source of the deposit were established, and the enquiry into the source of the source was beyond the ambit of Section 69. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the source of the investment. The AO should have investigated further but failed to do so. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of ?16,00,000/- made under Section 69, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of the investment, and the AO failed to further investigate the creditworthiness of the Director and the genuineness of the transaction. The reopening of the assessment was upheld, but the addition was found to be unjustified.

← Previous Next →