Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 288 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - reopening beyond period of four years - HELD THAT - Since in the instant case the reopening has been made after a period of 04 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and in the reasons recorded by the A.O. there is mere allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of assessment, but the reasons do not indicate how the assessee has failed to make full and true disclosure of all material facts, therefore, such reopening in our opinion is in violation of First proviso to Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 D.R. also could not controvert the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue while quashing the reassessment proceedings. Since the order of the CIT(A) is based on judicial precedents and the Ld. D.R. could not bring any material to controvert the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the detailed order of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore, uphold the same and the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 25,32,35,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings: - Background and Initial Assessment: The original assessment for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 22.11.2011, determining the total income at Rs. 5,84,39,170/-. The assessee had provided detailed information regarding share application money during the original assessment, which was accepted without any adverse inference. - Reopening of Assessment: The assessment was reopened under Section 147 based on information from a search operation and subsequent inquiries, alleging that the assessee received share capital from non-descript companies, which were found to be bogus and non-existent. - Reasons for Reopening: The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) stated that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. However, the reasons did not specify which material facts were not disclosed by the assessee. - Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (343 ITR 141) and Alcatel Lucent France and Ors. vs. ACIT & Ors. (384 ITR 113), which emphasized that the reasons for reopening must indicate how and why the assessee failed to make full and true disclosure of material facts. Mere repetition of statutory language is insufficient. - Errors in Reasons Recorded: The reasons recorded contained factual inaccuracies, such as incorrect figures of share capital and premium. Moreover, the foundational material was not confronted to the assessee, and the approval for reopening was given mechanically without proper application of mind. - CIT(A)'s Observations: The CIT(A) noted that the A.O. did not establish any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reasons recorded were vague and general, lacking specific evidence to justify reopening. The CIT(A) also observed that the approval for reopening did not meet the legal requirements, as it was given in a ritualistic and formal manner. - Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings, stating that the reopening was in violation of the First Proviso to Section 147, as the reasons recorded did not indicate how the assessee failed to disclose material facts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue. 2. Addition of Rs. 25,32,35,000/- under Section 68: - A.O.'s Findings: The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 25,32,35,000/- to the total income of the assessee under Section 68, concluding that the share capital/share premium received from various companies were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. - CIT(A)'s Decision on Merits: The CIT(A) deleted the addition on merit, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) relied on various decisions to support this conclusion. - Tribunal's View: Since the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings, the grounds challenging the deletion on merit became academic and were not adjudicated. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and not adjudicating the merits of the addition under Section 68 due to the quashing of the reassessment. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specific and detailed reasons for reopening assessments, in line with legal precedents.
|