2016 (11) TMI 1629 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s order, dismisses Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing reassessment proceedings and ... Re-opening of the assessment order u/s 147 - non disposal of disposal of the objections raised by the assessee on the re-opening of the assessment - HELD THAT:- Since the AO has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee on the re-opening of the assessment order u/s 147 we relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of KSS Petron [2016 (10) TMI 1112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and following the same reasoning we quash the reassessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 148 of the Act. Since we have upheld the order of CIT(A) in quashing the re-assessment order framed u/s 144 r.w.s 148 of the Act, we are of the view that the other grounds raised by the Revenue on merits, require no adjudication. Issues Involved:1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148.2. Validity of the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 148.3. Deletion of additions made by the AO on account of undisclosed income from evasion of sales tax.4. Deletion of business income estimated at 5% on total sales.5. Deletion of addition on sales of goods in the market with a profit margin.6. Deletion of addition on account of income from other sources.7. Deletion of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147 and Issuance of Notice under Section 148:The assessee challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 on the grounds that the AO did not independently apply his mind and merely relied on the information from the Sales Tax Department. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not have sufficient independent evidence to justify the initiation of proceedings and that the AO did not dispose of the objections raised by the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the proceedings were invalid as they were based solely on the Sales Tax Department's report without any independent verification by the AO.2. Validity of the Ex-Parte Assessment under Section 144 read with Section 148:The AO proceeded with an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 148 due to the non-cooperation of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) held that the AO's failure to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee rendered the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the requirement for the AO to dispose of objections as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.3. Deletion of Additions Made by the AO on Account of Undisclosed Income from Evasion of Sales Tax:The AO added Rs. 2,60,05,953/- as undisclosed income based on the Sales Tax Department's report of evasion. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide any independent evidence to substantiate this addition and that the Sales Tax Department's report alone was insufficient. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that no additional evidence was brought on record by the AO to support the addition.4. Deletion of Business Income Estimated at 5% on Total Sales:The AO estimated business income at 5% on total sales and made an addition of Rs. 1,77,96,741/-. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, as the AO's estimation lacked proper basis and was not supported by evidence.5. Deletion of Addition on Sales of Goods in the Market with a Profit Margin:The AO added Rs. 2,13,19,380/- based on an assumed profit margin of Rs. 3/- per liter on the sale of goods. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, finding that the AO's assumption was not backed by any concrete evidence.6. Deletion of Addition on Account of Income from Other Sources:The AO added Rs. 1,12,163/- as income from other sources. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the addition.7. Deletion of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:The CIT(A) deleted the interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, as the underlying additions on which the interest was based were found to be unjustified.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings and deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the AO independently verifying the information and disposing of objections raised by the assessee, as mandated by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.