2014 (4) TMI 902 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes reassessment for improper application of law and invalid notice

Ms. Jalpa M. Rughani Versus Income Tax Officer

Ms. Jalpa M. Rughani Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained cash credits.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148, arguing that the reopening of the assessment was beyond the permissible period of four years. The assessee contended that the income that allegedly escaped assessment was less than Rs. 1,00,000, which does not justify reopening beyond four years as per section 149 of the Act. The AO issued the notice based on information received from the CCIT (Central)-1 regarding havala transactions involving the assessee, but the assessee argued that the shares were purchased through a legitimate broker and were duly accounted for in the books.The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that the AO sought to make an addition of Rs. 1,23,200, which exceeds Rs. 1,00,000, thus justifying reopening within six years under section 149(b). However, the Tribunal found that the AO did not apply his mind properly, as the maximum addition that could be justified was Rs. 80,636, not exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal concluded that reopening beyond four years was not permissible, rendering the notice under section 148 invalid.2. Addition as Unexplained Cash Credits:The AO added Rs. 1,23,200 as unexplained cash credits, assuming that the assessee purchased shares at Rs. 7.70 per share instead of the declared price of Rs. 2.45 to Rs. 2.75 per share. The AO treated the difference as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The assessee argued that the shares were purchased through a broker, duly accounted for, and reflected in the Demat account.The CIT(A) partially agreed with the assessee, restricting the addition to Rs. 80,636, the difference between the purchase price declared by the assessee and the AO's assumed price. The Tribunal, however, noted that the AO's assumption lacked evidence and was based on a flawed understanding of the facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct provision to apply was section 69B for unexplained investments, not section 68 for cash credits. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach was incorrect and that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding them to be bad in law due to the improper application of mind by the AO and the invalidity of the notice under section 148. The resultant addition and assessment were also quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.