2022 (12) TMI 494 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of re-opening of assessment u/s 147 - parity between reasons recorded and notice issued - reasons to believe - addition on account of undisclosed receipts out of sale of plots of land - HELD THAT - As in the assessment order, we note that AO has not made any additions and nor even discussed the issue on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. Accordingly, in our view, the order passed by the AO u/s 147/148 of the Act is liable to be set aside on the grounds of jurisdiction, in light of the discussion above. Having held that additions made during reassessment proceedings deserve to be set aside on grounds of jurisdiction, we are not going into the individual grounds with respect to merits of the case. Appeal of the Department is dismissed.

Issues:
- Appeal against order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
- Challenge of validity of re-opening of assessment
- Deletion of additions on various grounds by the CIT(A)
- Cross objections filed by the assessee challenging validity of assessment

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12, challenging the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also filed cross objections challenging the validity of the re-opening of assessment in the given facts.

2. The Department raised several grounds of appeal, questioning the CIT(A)'s decisions on various additions, including undisclosed receipts from the sale of land, treatment of deficit arising from land sale as short-term capital loss, treatment of surplus from land sale as long-term capital gain, undisclosed income from sale of units, and addition under section 68 of the Act.

3. The assessee's cross objections primarily challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer could not make additions on grounds other than those mentioned in the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment.

4. The counsel for the assessee argued that the assessment order did not make any additions concerning the issues on which the assessment was reopened. The counsel relied on a judgment of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that additions cannot be made on grounds not forming part of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment.

5. The Department contended that although the additions were made on a different basis, they were related to the same property mentioned in the reasons for re-opening the assessment, justifying the additions under section 147 of the Act.

6. The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties. Referring to relevant case laws, including decisions by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of additions being made based on the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment. The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the reasons for re-opening and the additions made in the assessment order.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer did not make any additions or discuss the issues for which the assessment was reopened. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Department and allowed the cross objections of the assessee, setting aside the additions made during the reassessment proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the appeal and cross objections in the case.

← Previous Next →