2024 (11) TMI 353 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment beyond period of limitation - Notice served beyond the time limit specified u/s 149 - HELD THAT - Issue that notice u/s. 148 issued is barred by limitation is not correct sine the notice was issued within the period of six years on 28.03.2018 and there is no dispute regarding issuance of notice which was duly served on 02.04.2018. We have gone through the provisions of the Act, it talks about the issue of notice, the section 149 is very much clear that notice must be issued within the period as per section 149(1)(a)/(b). The section talks about the time limit specified for issue of notice only and not for the service of notice within the period specified. Accordingly ground rejected. Legality of assessment order and proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Financial creditor petition has been dismissed and at the time of passing the order, the AO had no any information about the NCLT order. The assessee is unable to show that the information was given to the jurisdictional assessing officer before passing the reassessment order Accordingly ground No.3 is rejected. Addition on the basis of documents submitted with Punjab National Bank which were audited financial statements - During the course of reassessment proceedings the notices issued by the AO were not complied by the assessee properly and a letter was written to the AO which is incorporated by the AO of his reassessment order. Accordingly with the consent of both the parties during the course of hearing, we remit the issue to the AO for de novo consideration and fresh decision as per law. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating its case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of assessment order and proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Adequacy of evidence and justification for additions made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Discrepancies in financial statements submitted to the department and Punjab National Bank.
5. Compliance with statutory requirements and procedural fairness in reassessment proceedings.

Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The appellant contended that the notice issued under section 148 was time-barred, as it was served beyond the limitation period specified in section 149 of the Act. The appellant relied on a Madras High Court judgment to support this argument. However, the Tribunal rejected this ground, emphasizing that the notice was issued within the statutory time limit, and there was no dispute regarding its service. The Tribunal clarified that the Act only specifies the time limit for issuing the notice, not for its service, distinguishing the case from the precedent cited by the appellant.

Issue 2: Legality of Assessment Order and IBC Proceedings:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the legality of the assessment order, arguing that the proceedings should have been stayed under section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the initiation of insolvency resolution process by financial creditors. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to inform the assessing officer about the moratorium granted by the NCLT. Additionally, the NCLAT's subsequent dismissal of the financial creditor's petition indicated that the insolvency proceedings did not affect the assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground raised by the appellant.

Issue 3: Adequacy of Evidence for Additions:
The appellant challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer based on financial statements shared by Punjab National Bank, alleging lack of independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted the discrepancies in the sales and purchases figures between the financial statements submitted to the department and the bank. While the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the AO only considered inflated sales figures, it directed a de novo consideration by the AO to allow the appellant to substantiate its case with necessary documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair opportunity for the appellant to present its case.

Issue 4: Discrepancies in Financial Statements:
The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the financial results reported to the department and those submitted to Punjab National Bank. The AO computed the gross profit rate based on the bank's figures, leading to a substantial addition to the assessed income. The Tribunal recognized the need for a thorough reevaluation of the case to address the discrepancies and ensure procedural fairness. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with the law.

Issue 5: Compliance and Procedural Fairness:
Throughout the proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and procedural fairness. It highlighted the necessity for the appellant to cooperate fully, provide essential documents, and participate actively in the reassessment process. The Tribunal underscored the significance of a fair hearing and urged the appellant to avoid unnecessary delays to expedite the resolution of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, signaling the need for further examination and resolution of the issues raised.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the key issues raised by the appellant and the Tribunal's findings on each matter, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal complexities involved in the case.

← Previous Next →