2022 (6) TMI 259 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants - HELD THAT - The above said information were very well in existence in the hands of the Ld. A.O when the original assessment order was passed on 29/12/2011. Therefore, we find that the reopening of assessment was without any fresh tangible material. It is well settled law that, in the absence of fresh tangible material, the action u/s. 147 of the Act by the A.O is not tenable under the law. Reopening of the assessment is clearly bad in law and liable to be quashed, accordingly we allow the assessee's grounds of Appeal and set aside the order of Lower Authorities, resultantly, additions stands deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Issues:
1. Validity of additions made under sections 153A and 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legality of reassessment proceedings and assessment order.
3. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding cash credits.
4. Reopening of assessment without fresh tangible material.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) regarding additions made under sections 153A and 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the additions were not valid as there was no incriminating material found during search proceedings. The appellant argued that the legal issue had been decided in their favor by the ITAT for the assessment year under consideration. The appellant also raised objections regarding the sustainability of reassessment proceedings and the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Additionally, the appellant questioned the mechanical nature of the sanction under section 151 of the Act.

2. The reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were challenged on various grounds by the appellant. It was argued that the proceedings were not validly initiated and were barred by limitation. The appellant contended that the objection raised was not properly considered, and the assessment was completed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Furthermore, the appellant sought to quash the reassessment proceedings based on the denial of reasonable time to take remedial action against the assessment order.

3. The burden of proof regarding cash credits amounting to Rs. 45,00,000 was a key issue in the appeal. The appellant argued that they had discharged their initial burden under the Act to prove the nature and source of the cash credits. However, both authorities took an adverse view against the appellant, placing the burden on them to produce share applicants. The appellant contended that the authorities erred in their decision regarding the cash credits.

4. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the appellant, particularly regarding the addition of Rs. 45,00,000 under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the information used for the reassessment was already available to the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal held that in the absence of fresh tangible material, the action under section 147 of the Act was not tenable. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment and allowed the appellant's grounds of appeal, resulting in the deletion of the additions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised by the appellant and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the appeal.

← Previous Next →