2020 (3) TMI 1367 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in tax appeal, quashing reassessment and upholding appeal.

NAWAL OILS AND CONTAINERS P. LTD., Versus  ITO, WARD-18 (2),

NAWAL OILS AND CONTAINERS P. LTD., Versus  ITO, WARD-18 (2), - TMI Issues:1. Jurisdiction of AO under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Application of section 153C over section 147.3. Addition of share application money under section 68.4. Addition made under section 69C.5. Legal and merit-based grounds of appeal by the assessee.Jurisdiction of AO under section 147:The appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged incriminating documents found in the search of a third party. The appellant contended that the AO should have applied section 153C instead of section 147, as the former provisions are non-obstantive and exclude the operations of section 147. The Tribunal referred to past decisions, including one where it was held that if reassessment is based on incriminating material from a third party search, section 153C is applicable, rendering the notice under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed, and the appeal allowed.Application of section 153C over section 147:The appellant argued that section 153C should have been applied instead of section 147 by the revenue. The Tribunal upheld this argument, citing past decisions where it was established that if reassessment is initiated based on incriminating material from a third party search, section 153C prevails, rendering section 147 inapplicable. The reassessment was deemed void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the reassessment and allowing the appeal.Addition of share application money under section 68:The appellant contested the addition of share application money under section 68, stating that necessary details were provided to the AO before filing the Return of Income (ROI) for the relevant year. It was argued that the AO did not issue summons to the share subscribers who had filed confirmations, and no incriminating evidence was found in the search of the third party to link the money to the appellant. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting that the AO did not follow the required procedure, and the addition was made without sufficient evidence, leading to the allowance of the appeal.Addition made under section 69C:The appellant challenged the addition made under section 69C, arguing that no evidence was unearthed during the search of the third party to support this addition. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of corroborative evidence and sustained the appellant's argument, resulting in the quashing of the addition and allowing the appeal.Legal and merit-based grounds of appeal:The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including legal and merit-based issues. The Tribunal thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed past decisions, and considered the facts of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on various grounds, quashing the reassessment and allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal comprehensively, highlighting the key arguments, legal principles, and decisions that influenced the Tribunal's final decision in favor of the appellant.