2024 (10) TMI 777 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made to the income in the reassessment proceedings -Petitioner has done bogus financial transaction with said third party - formation of a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessmen - HELD THAT - This Court in the matter of M/S. PASARI CASTING AND ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LTD 2024 (2) TMI 280 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT has decided the issue that it is not the case of the department that Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma took name of the Petitioner that he has provided accommodation entry to him. As per the recorded reasons, Sri Sharma has stated that he provided accommodation entries to certain persons ; however, the name of the Petitioner has never been taken by him. The date on which statement of Sri Sharma is recorded is not known to Assessing Officer and also whether it relates to the assessment year in question is also not known. Further, the date of statement of Sri Sharma is neither mentioned in the recorded reasons nor in the show cause notice nor in the Assessment Order. The Counter Affidavit is also silent, hence, on its basis no reasonable belief could be formed that the said statement relates to the assessment year in question in which the income has escaped the assessment. In the absence of date of statement, it is far- fetched to assume that it relates to the assessment year in question as held in ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT It further transpires from records that the proceedings in the instant case is initiated for verifications and roving enquiry which is clearly impermissible under section 147/148 as held by this Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maheswari Devi 2022 (11) TMI 1117 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT - It is also not clear whether the statement of Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma is recorded U/s 132(4) or Section 133A, inasmuch as, a statement recorded U/s 133A has no evidentiary value. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022.
2. Quashing of the Notice of Demand under Section 156 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
3. Quashing of the Notice for Penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
4. Direction to produce records pertaining to the reassessment proceedings.
5. Declaration of reassessment proceedings as violative of Principles of Natural Justice.
6. Issuance of any other appropriate writ or order for justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Assessment Order:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022, which added Rs. 8,00,000 to the petitioner's income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the formation of a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment is a condition precedent for acquiring jurisdiction under Section 147/148. However, there was no direct nexus or tangible material leading to the formation of such belief. The court emphasized that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment cannot be supplemented or altered post facto. The court concluded that the assessment order was based on conjecture and lacked substantial evidence, leading to its quashing.

2. Quashing of the Notice of Demand:
The petitioner also challenged the Notice of Demand issued under Section 156 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The court, referencing the lack of a rational connection between the material and the belief of income escapement, quashed the notice. The court reiterated the principle that the reasons for the formation of belief must have a rational connection with the formation of the belief and should not be a mere pretence.

3. Quashing of the Notice for Penalty:
The petitioner sought to quash the Notice for Penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). The court highlighted that the recorded reasons were vague and failed to specify under which provision of the Act the additions were sought. The court found that the penalty proceedings were initiated without a proper basis and thus quashed the notice.

4. Direction to Produce Records:
The petitioner requested the production of records related to the reassessment proceedings. The court acknowledged the lack of clarity and transparency in the proceedings and the failure to provide the petitioner with necessary information. However, the court focused on the broader issue of the invalidity of the proceedings rather than specifically ordering the production of records.

5. Declaration of Reassessment Proceedings as Violative:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings violated the Principles of Natural Justice. The court agreed, noting that the proceedings were initiated on vague grounds without proper evidence. The court emphasized that the reasons for reopening must be clear and specific, and the petitioner must be informed of the exact provisions under which the assessment is being reopened.

6. Issuance of Other Appropriate Writs or Orders:
The court, considering the lack of bona fide belief and the arbitrary nature of the proceedings, allowed the writ application. It quashed all impugned notices and orders related to the reassessment, including the Assessment Order, Notice of Demand, and Penalty Notice. The court also closed any pending interlocutory applications, ensuring comprehensive relief to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court found the reassessment proceedings to be fundamentally flawed due to the absence of a reasonable belief based on tangible evidence, leading to the quashing of all related orders and notices.

← Previous Next →