2018 (5) TMI 1951 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, reassessment quashed due to AO's failure to apply mind independently. Reopening based on borrowed satisfaction invalidated.

M/s Merta Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1), Jaipur

The appeal was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were quashed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to independently apply his ... Validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 -Assessee has suppressed its profits by taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- The intimation from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai was about the bogus investment/share applications. AO has not at all applied his mind while recording the reasons. The facts on record clearly establishes that the AO has not applied his mind so as to come to a conclusion that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The reasons recorded are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as on the facts acceptable in the eyes of law. The reasons recorded also suggest that the AO has mechanically issued notice u/s 148 even not bothering regarding the nature of information received from the DGIT (Inv), New Delhi. Such vagueness in the reasons recorded make reopening bad in law and deserved to be quashed. Therefore, we quash the reopening of the assessment. Since we have quashed the notice issued for reopening assessment u/s 148 - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 75 lakhs under Section 68 by treating the share capital money received as unexplained.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary contention of the assessee was that the notice under Section 148 was issued solely based on information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, without the Assessing Officer (AO) applying his own mind. The assessee argued that the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment must be his own and not borrowed from another source. The AO recorded that the assessee suppressed profits by taking accommodation entries of Rs. 75,00,000/- in the nature of bogus purchases from five companies, whereas the assessee had actually received share application money. The assessee cited several judicial precedents to support the argument that the AO must independently verify the information received before initiating reassessment proceedings.The Tribunal noted that the AO received information from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai, but incorrectly recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, stating that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not apply his mind and acted mechanically on the information received. The reasons recorded were vague and not based on tangible material. The Tribunal relied on various judicial decisions, including those from the Delhi High Court and other Tribunal benches, which held that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind is invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment.2. Addition of Rs. 75 lakhs under Section 68 by treating the share capital money received as unexplained:Since the Tribunal quashed the notice issued for reopening the assessment under Section 148, the issues raised regarding the addition of Rs. 75 lakhs under Section 68 became academic and were not adjudicated.General Grounds:Grounds No. 3 and 4 of the appeal were general in nature and did not require any adjudication.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were quashed due to the AO's failure to independently apply his mind and the vagueness of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.Order Pronouncement:The order was pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2018.