2016 (5) TMI 1161 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes reassessment, citing lack of evidence, due process violations

M/s Pankaj Gas Cylinders Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 14 (1), New Delhi

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings and additions made by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on ... Reopening of assessment - information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) - Held that:- After going through the reasons recorded by the AO, we are of the view that AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favor of the Assessee Issues Involved:1. Validity of reassessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer.2. Whether the Assessing Officer had tangible material to believe that income escaped assessment.3. Justification of rejecting documentary evidence without providing opportunity for rebuttal.4. Consideration of legal precedents in the appellant's case.5. Whether the Assessing Authority acted independently in determining income escapement.Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment and Additions:The Assessee filed an appeal against the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) relevant to the assessment year 2002-03. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information received from the Directorate of Investigation, alleging that the Assessee's income had escaped assessment by routing undisclosed income through share application money. The Assessee challenged the reassessment and additions made by the AO, which were upheld by the CIT(A).Issue 2: Tangible Material for Income Escapement:The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material or reasonable cause to believe that income had escaped assessment. The AO issued a notice under section 148 based on information from the Investigation Wing without independently applying his mind. The Tribunal found the reasons recorded for reopening to be vague and lacking in tangible material, quashing the reassessment proceedings based on legal precedents.Issue 3: Rejection of Documentary Evidence:The Assessee questioned the rejection of documentary evidence supporting share capital received, emphasizing the lack of opportunity for rebuttal or cross-examination of the unknown person whose statement was relied upon. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing such opportunities and criticized the AO for rejecting evidence without due process.Issue 4: Consideration of Legal Precedents:The Assessee argued for the application of legal precedents like the decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. to support the challenge against the validity of reopening under section 148. The Tribunal found the issue in the present case to be similar to the legal precedent cited, leading to a decision in favor of the Assessee based on the established legal principles.Issue 5: Independent Determination of Income Escapement:The Assessee raised concerns about whether the Assessing Authority acted independently in determining income escapement or relied on the opinion of the Directorate of Investigation. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to apply an independent mind and found the reassessment proceedings lacking in this regard, ultimately deciding in favor of the Assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings and additions made by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on the lack of tangible material for income escapement, the rejection of documentary evidence without due process, and the failure to independently determine the validity of the reassessment. The Tribunal's decision was guided by legal precedents and the requirement for an independent assessment by the Authorities.