Section 148 notices quashed for bogus property advance payments with no actual sale or transfer

The Gujarat HC quashed Section 148 notices for reopening assessment based on alleged bogus advance payment for immovable property purchase. The court found no income escapement as the property was never sold or transferred to the claimant, remaining registered in petitioner's name with possession intact. Without actual sale deed execution or possession transfer, no capital gains income accrued. The Assessing Officer lacked valid reason to believe income escaped assessment since all material facts were disclosed and no chargeable income existed from the alleged transaction.

---

---

Issues Involved: Validity of reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Adequacy of reasons for reopening; Compliance with Section 151 of the Act; Application of mind by the Assessing Officer and sanctioning authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioners argued that the condition precedent for reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act is the escapement of income chargeable to tax. In the absence of such escapement, the reopening was not justified.

2. Adequacy of Reasons for Reopening:
The reasons recorded for reopening were scrutinized. The Assessing Officer cited an agreement to sell immovable properties and an advance of Rs. 5,53,53,053/- received in cash, which was not accounted for by the assessee. The petitioners contended that no transfer of property had occurred as no sale deed was executed nor possession handed over, and thus, no income chargeable to tax had arisen. The reasons were deemed vague and lacking specific details such as the date of receipt of information, source of information, and description of properties.

3. Compliance with Section 151 of the Act:
The petitioners argued that for reopening beyond four years, it is mandatory to obtain sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Such sanction should not be mechanical but should involve detailed satisfaction after perusing the material on record. The petitioners claimed that the sanction in this case was mechanical and lacked application of mind.

4. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer and Sanctioning Authority:
The petitioners asserted that the Assessing Officer must independently satisfy himself that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. They argued that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction from external information without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The respondent countered that sufficient tangible material, such as a copy of the agreement for sale and an FIR, was available, and the amount received was not disclosed in the return of income.

Judgment:
The court found that the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued solely on the ground that the assessee did not account for Rs. 5,53,53,053/- in his return of income, leading to the conclusion of income escapement. However, it was established that no sale deed was executed, nor possession handed over, meaning no income accrued from the transfer of a capital asset. The court held that the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, which was not evident in this case. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not justified.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notices dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 and the orders disposing of the objections raised by the petitioners. The rule was made absolute, and no costs were ordered.

---