2024 (12) TMI 1479 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - credit entries escaped assessment - AO disallowed 10% of purchases as an expenditure - HELD THAT - As per Explanation 3 of the section 147 of the Act, if during the course of assessment proceedings the AO comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings, hence, the notice, he would be competent to make assessment to those items. The Hon ble Delhi High Court has interpreted this that the legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act regarding reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving enquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. As in the present case, the issue is exactly identical what was in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT and of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. of Bombay High Court 2010 (4) TMI 431 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Since the issue, is in favour of the assessee, we quash the reassessment framed by AO as bad in law.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) properly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the disallowance of 10% of the expenditure claimed as purchases, due to alleged cash transactions in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, was justified.
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid given the discrepancy between the reasons for reopening and the actual additions made by the AO.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Assumption of Jurisdiction for Reopening Assessment

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessments is governed by Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The AO must have "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The case references include the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO's reopening was based on substantial credit entries in the assessee's bank accounts, which were not explained satisfactorily.
Key Evidence and Findings: The AO relied on information from a STR report indicating unexplained credit entries totaling Rs. 26,91,95,139/- in the assessee's bank accounts.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal examined whether the AO's reasons for reopening were consistent with the subsequent assessment actions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the AO's final assessment did not address the original reasons for reopening, thus invalidating the proceedings.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's jurisdiction for reopening was improperly exercised, as the final assessment did not address the specific reasons for reopening.

Issue 2: Disallowance of 10% Expenditure on Purchases

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act prohibits cash transactions above a specified limit, requiring disallowance of related expenditures.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed 10% of the purchase expenditures due to cash transactions, lacking proper documentation.
Key Evidence and Findings: The AO noted that the purchases were made in cash from villagers, with no supporting purchase bills provided by the assessee.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal considered whether the AO's application of Section 40A(3) was justified given the lack of documentary evidence.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that the disallowance was arbitrary and not connected to the reasons for reopening.
Conclusions: The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified as it was not connected to the original reasons for reopening the assessment.

Issue 3: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reassessment process requires the AO to address the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must address the specific issues that prompted the reopening of the assessment.
Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's final assessment focused on disallowance of expenditure, not the unexplained credit entries.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Jet Airways (I) Ltd. to determine the validity of the reassessment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's failure to address the original reasons for reopening as a critical flaw.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was invalid as it did not address the reasons for reopening, thus quashing the assessment.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction."
Core Principles Established: The AO must address the specific reasons for reopening an assessment. Deviating from the original reasons without proper justification renders the reassessment invalid.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as invalid due to the AO's failure to address the original reasons for reopening, thereby allowing both appeals of the assessee.

← Previous Next →