2023 (2) TMI 1290 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment under Section 147 invalid due to incorrect basis, Section 68 addition unsustainable for currency exchange business

B.R. Goel & Sons (HUF) Versus ITO, Ward 47 (4), New Delhi

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. First, the AO's reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were invalid as they were initiated on the ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe - HELD THAT:- As the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the facts of the case in the case of RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Shri Omvir Singh vs. ITO [2020 (6) TMI 822 - ITAT DELHI] therefore we are inclined to hold that the AO initiating reassessment proceedings mainly on the incorrect and wrong basis that the assessee has not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 and thus the AO did not assume valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and to pass impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 - Assessee appeal allowed. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee - HELD THAT:- When the assessee is in the business of exchange of old Torn/Soiled/Mutilated currency noted then the modus operandi of business would be the same as stated by the learned counsel of the assessee that is the assessee has to deposit old Torn/Soiled/Mutilated notes to the bank account and he is required to withdraw amounts from the bank account for the purpose of giving the same in exchange to its customer and clients. Therefore we declined to approve basis taken by the AO for making addition of entire cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee and ignoring the high amount of cash withdrawn by the assessee for the purpose of its business. Therefore addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Our above noted conclusion also gets strong support from the judgement of Sona Electric Co. [1984 (2) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Mrs. Deepali Sehgal [2014 (9) TMI 1073 - ITAT DELHI] and Smt. Parminder Kaur Matharoo [2022 (11) TMI 779 - ITAT DELHI] to hold that the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable - Assessee appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.3. Miscarriage of justice due to incorrect factual findings.4. Mechanical sanction by the sanctioning authority.5. Addition of Rs. 1,09,49,000 under Section 68.6. Admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A).Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147:The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, arguing that the provision cited by the Assessing Officer (AO) was outdated and had been substituted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, effective from 01.04.1989. The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated proceedings based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return for the relevant Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The Tribunal referred to the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., where it was established that reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required conditions are not satisfied. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's initiation of proceedings was invalid as it was based on incorrect information.2. Validity of Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147:The Tribunal examined whether the AO had valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. It was noted that the AO proceeded on the incorrect premise that the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2011-12, despite evidence showing that the return was filed on 02.07.2012. The Tribunal cited the case of Omvir Singh vs. ITO, where similar circumstances led to the quashing of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.3. Miscarriage of Justice Due to Incorrect Factual Findings:The Tribunal found that the AO's incorrect factual finding'that the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2011-12'resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's actions were mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by the reliance on outdated provisions and incorrect information.4. Mechanical Sanction by the Sanctioning Authority:The assessee argued that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) granted sanction for the notice under Section 148 in a mechanical manner, without proper verification. The Tribunal observed that the AO's initiation of proceedings was based on incorrect information, and the sanctioning authority failed to verify this information. This mechanical approach further invalidated the reassessment proceedings.5. Addition of Rs. 1,09,49,000 under Section 68:The Tribunal examined the addition of Rs. 1,09,49,000 made by the AO under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the cash deposits were explainable through its books of account and bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in the business of exchanging torn/soiled/mutilated currency notes and that the cash deposits and withdrawals were part of this business. The Tribunal found that the AO ignored the fact that the assessee had withdrawn a higher amount than the deposits, which was consistent with the business operations. The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable and directed the AO to delete it.6. Admission of Additional Evidence by the CIT(A):The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing copies to the assessee. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary grounds for quashing the reassessment proceedings and the addition under Section 68 were sufficient to allow the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,09,49,000 under Section 68. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper application of mind by the AO and the need for accurate information in initiating reassessment proceedings. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2023.