2022 (1) TMI 1227 - HC - Income Tax

High Court finds errors in assessment reopening form unacceptable, demands direct explanations from involved officers.

The High Court found errors in the form for re-opening of assessment unacceptable, noting Mr. Saurabh Yadav's lack of personal involvement. The court ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of issuance of approval - HELD THAT:- Since it is the issue of revenue of the State (the question of income alleged to have escaped assessment), we direct the then DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai Mr. Trilochan Singh Khalsa, Mr. Ashok Pophare Additional CIT, CR-6, Mumbai and Ms. Irina Garg, Principal CIT, Central-3, Mumbai who are the officers who have signed on the Form for re-opening under Section 151 of the Act, to explain the basis on which re-opening was approved when the form had errors. If these three officers or any of them is not in service, such person need not file the affidavit but the others in that case will mention when this person retired in their respective affidavit. The affidavits in compliance with the order dated 21st December, 2021, to be filed within three weeks from today. Issues:1. Errors in Form for re-opening of assessment2. Affidavit filed by Mr. Saurabh Yadav3. Requirement for explanation from relevant officers4. Correction in the order dated 21st December, 2021Analysis:Errors in Form for re-opening of assessment:The High Court noted that Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), admitted errors in Column No.8 and 9 of the Form for re-opening. However, the court found these mistakes not acceptable as Mr. Yadav had no personal involvement in filling up the form or in the approval process. The court emphasized that the individuals directly responsible for the re-opening process should provide explanations, specifically mentioning Mr. Trilochan Singh Khalsa, Mr. Ashok Pophare, and Ms. Irina Garg.Affidavit filed by Mr. Saurabh Yadav:Mr. Saurabh Yadav's affidavit, acknowledging errors in the re-opening form but attributing them to bonafide mistakes, was not considered satisfactory by the court. The court highlighted the importance of the individuals directly involved in the re-opening process providing explanations, rather than a third party like Mr. Yadav, who lacked personal knowledge of the matter.Requirement for explanation from relevant officers:Given that the issue pertains to a significant amount of alleged escaped income, the court directed the officers directly involved in signing the Form for re-opening to explain the basis for approving the re-opening despite the errors present in the form. The court specifically named Mr. Trilochan Singh Khalsa, Mr. Ashok Pophare, and Ms. Irina Garg, emphasizing the need for them to clarify the circumstances surrounding the approval.Correction in the order dated 21st December, 2021:The court made a correction in the order dated 21st December, 2021, changing the reference from 'Schedule 8 and Schedule 9' to 'Column 8 and Column 9.' This correction was made while keeping the rest of the order unaltered. The case was adjourned to 28th February, 2022, with any interim relief granted continuing until the next hearing date.