2022 (9) TMI 1029 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - special information received by the ld. AO regarding investment of appellant as founder in M/s Mars Educational Trust - HELD THAT - In the assessment proceeding there is no connection in between recorded reason and addition of the income. The entire reasons to believe are itself erroneous and not established on the true fact. Respectfully considered the order of Jet Airways (I) Ltd, 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY the basis of issuance of notice u/s 148 is non discloser of primary facts by the assessee. The fact which was ascertained / verified by the AO is itself erroneous. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. If the ld. AO intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, legality of which would be tested in event of a challenge by assessee.The entire recorded reason is erroneous. The ld AO acted beyond jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is non est. We are in opinion that the assessment order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous and bad in law. CIT(A) had not considered the legal point in his order. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.
2. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Adequacy of reasons to believe for reassessment.
4. Legality of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) unrelated to the recorded reasons for reassessment.
5. Jurisdictional overreach by the AO in making arbitrary income enhancements.
6. Failure of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to address legal points and merits of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals and Condonation of Delay:
The assessee filed the appeals with a delay of 1014 days. The delay was attributed to technical glitches and short payment of appeal fees, which were subsequently rectified. The Tribunal, with the consent of the Senior Departmental Representative (DR), condoned the delay, accepting the explanation provided by the assessee.

2. Validity of Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147/148:
The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the AO's belief that the assessee, as a settlor of Mars Educational Trust (MET), had undisclosed income. The AO issued a notice under Section 148, citing reasons to believe that income amounting to Rs. 10,79,81,598 had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were not based on credible evidence, as the AO did not illuminate any point related to the recorded reason during the addition of income.

3. Adequacy of Reasons to Believe for Reassessment:
The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons to believe must be based on definite and credible evidence. The assessee argued that the AO failed to establish a bona fide belief of income escapement, relying on vague and irrelevant information. The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd v. ITO and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd v. ITO, to highlight that the AO must have prima facie material to justify reopening the case. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons were erroneous and not established on true facts.

4. Legality of Additions Made by the AO Unrelated to the Recorded Reasons for Reassessment:
The Tribunal observed that the AO made additions related to business income from a petrol pump and agricultural income, which were not part of the recorded reasons for reassessment. The Tribunal cited the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that if no addition is made on the issue forming part of the reasons to believe, the AO cannot assess or reassess any other income. The Tribunal concluded that the AO acted beyond jurisdiction by making additions unrelated to the recorded reasons.

5. Jurisdictional Overreach by the AO in Making Arbitrary Income Enhancements:
The Tribunal found that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by arbitrarily enhancing the assessee's income without establishing the correctness and completeness of the reasons recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148. The Tribunal held that the AO's actions were beyond the scope of his authority and thus invalid.

6. Failure of the CIT(A) to Address Legal Points and Merits of the Appeal:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs without addressing the legal points raised by the assessee. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal, particularly the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous and did not consider the legal arguments presented by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed by the AO, declaring it erroneous and bad in law. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without credible evidence and the AO acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles laid down in several Supreme Court judgments, reinforcing the requirement of definite and credible reasons to believe for initiating reassessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →