2016 (1) TMI 1161 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment Reopening Invalidated: Change of Opinion without New Material

Chamatkar Properties And Investments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

The Tribunal invalidated the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 as it was deemed a change of opinion without new and tangible material. ... Reopening of assessment - assessee had allotted shares to and borrowed money from the companies which were associated with companies operating a scandal of accommodation entries - Held that:- From the above facts it is clear that the assessee had duly filed its return of income u/s 139(1) and also filed all the necessary records/details/confirmations before the AO who completed the assessment after examining the records and recorded his satisfaction in assessment order itself by way of office note and thus it is a case where the income had definitely not escaped because of the assessee having failed to make full and true disclosure as envisaged in the 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act and the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. It is also clear from the reasons recorded that assessment was reopened on the basis that the assessee had allotted shares to and borrowed money from the companies which were associated with Mr Mukesh M Chokshi and his company M/S Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd which were operating a scandal of accommodation entries and since the said information was not available with the AO at the time of original assessment and thus assessee had failed to disclose all material facts fully and truly. However in our opinion the assessee had fully disclosed all the facts qua allotment of shares and receiving loans and even filed confirmations from all these companies. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- as share capital and Rs. 25,39,180/- as unsecured loans.2. Validity of reopening the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Examination of whether the reopening was based on new and tangible material.4. Compliance with principles of natural justice and fairness during the assessment process.5. Burden of proof and substantiation of documentary evidence by the appellant company.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- as Share Capital and Rs. 25,39,180/- as Unsecured Loans:The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- as share capital and Rs. 25,39,180/- as unsecured loans, arguing that these were already examined by the predecessor AO during the original assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant maintained that all necessary documents, including confirmations and banking instruments, were provided to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO, however, concluded these amounts were unproven and added them under section 68 of the Act, citing involvement with entities associated with Mukesh M Chokshi, known for providing accommodation entries.2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment Under Sections 147/148:The assessment was reopened under section 147 based on information from a search and seizure action involving Mukesh M Chokshi and his associated companies. The AO believed that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, leading to the escapement of income. The reopening occurred after four years from the end of the assessment year, invoking the first proviso to section 147. The assessee argued that the reopening was invalid as it was based on the same materials already examined during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law.3. Examination of Whether the Reopening was Based on New and Tangible Material:The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on information available during the original assessment, where the AO had already examined the share capital and loan confirmations and recorded no adverse inference. The reasons recorded for reopening did not constitute new and tangible material but were based on the same facts previously scrutinized. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., emphasizing that reassessment based on the same materials is invalid.4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Fairness:The assessee contended that the CIT(A) upheld the reopening and the additions without giving a proper opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice, fairness, and equity. The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed just three days after the disposal of the assessee's objections, violating the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Asian Paints Ltd V DCIT, which mandates a reasonable time gap between disposing of objections and completing the assessment.5. Burden of Proof and Substantiation of Documentary Evidence:The assessee argued that it had discharged the burden of proof by providing all necessary documentary evidence, including confirmations from share applicants and loan creditors, which were verified during the original assessment. The Tribunal found that the AO had acknowledged these confirmations in the office note appended to the original assessment order, indicating no adverse inference. Thus, the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148, holding it invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without new and tangible material. Consequently, the additions of Rs. 75,00,000/- as share capital and Rs. 25,39,180/- as unsecured loans were also set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment order was annulled.