2022 (5) TMI 1231 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Mandation of considering objections raised by the writ applicant - HELD THAT - We should remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the objections raised by the writ applicant. We are not convinced with the manner in which the Assessing Officer has dealt with the objections raised by the writ applicant assessee. The writ applicant in so many words has tried to explain that the difference between the cash deposited and the sales shown is due to the VAT component in the cash deposited. According to the writ applicant, it is not a part of sales but shown separately as a liability. Whatever may be the worth of the explanation put forward by the writ applicant, it is expected of the Assessing Officer to apply his mind and decide the same accordingly. All that the Assessing Officer has said while disposing of the objections is that it is not an appropriate time to discuss the genuineness of the transactions on merits. We partly allowed this writ application. The impugned notice and the order disposing of the objections are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the objections.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment for A.Y. 2012-13.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Notice for Reopening Assessment:
The writ applicant challenged the Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The reasons for reopening were based on discrepancies in cash deposits and sales made by the assessee during the relevant financial year. The Assessing Officer found that there was excess cash deposited in the bank account without proper explanation, leading to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment.

2. Objections by the Writ Applicant:
The writ applicant filed objections stating that there was no failure to disclose material facts and no income had escaped assessment. The applicant argued that the difference in cash deposits and sales was due to VAT components not considered as part of sales but as a liability. However, the Assessing Officer dismissed these objections, stating that the genuineness of transactions could not be discussed at that stage.

3. Legal Principles for Reopening Assessment:
The Court summarized the principles governing the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Act. It emphasized that for jurisdiction to reopen assessment beyond four years, two conditions must be met simultaneously: belief that income has escaped assessment and failure to disclose material facts. The Court highlighted that the Assessing Officer must form a prima facie opinion based on recorded reasons before issuing a reopening notice.

4. Court's Decision:
The Court remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the objections raised by the writ applicant. It found the Assessing Officer's response inadequate and emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the explanations provided by the applicant. The Court quashed the impugned notice and directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the objections and pass a fresh order within two months, ensuring a fair opportunity for the applicant to present their case.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural and substantive aspects of reopening assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, ensuring that the Assessing Officer properly considers objections raised by the taxpayer before making a decision.