2017 (7) TMI 361 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, notice under sec 148 valid with one reason, remitted for further assessment.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-58 (2), Kolkata Versus Sri Biswanath Banerjee

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, overturning the CIT(Appeals) decision that annulled the assessment made under section 147/144. The Tribunal ... Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - eligible issue of notice - Held that:- After issuing the notice under section 148 within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e. on 22.03.2011, the reasons were also communicated by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 29.08.2011 in response to the request made by the assessee on 29.06.2011. It is also noted from the letter dated 29.08.2011 issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee communicating the reasons for reopening that it was specifically brought by him to the notice of the assessee that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2007-08, undisclosed Savings Bank Account No. 9348 maintained by the assessee with Bank of India, Baghajatin Branch was found where there was credit of ₹ 4,25,079/- appearing during the year under consideration. Since this reason communicated by the Assessing Officer to the assessee was very much there in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and even addition of ₹ 4,25,079/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 147/144, thus find that there was no variation at least in one of the reasons communicated by the Assessing Officer to the assessee from the one recorded by him. Thus there was no legal infirmity in the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under section 148 as allegedly pointed out by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order while annulling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/144 - Decided in favour of revenue Issues:Validity of assessment made under section 147/144 due to reasons not supplied with notice under section 148 and variation in reasons recorded and communicated.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata, which canceled the assessment made under section 147/144 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment due to a belief of income escapement by the assessee, an individual working as an Assistant Teacher. The assessment included additions on various grounds, such as unexplained credits in bank accounts, investments, and undisclosed income. The assessee challenged the assessment's validity and additions made in an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who annulled the assessment citing invalidity in the reopening process.The Revenue contended that the reasons recorded for reopening need not accompany the notice under section 148, as per legal precedents. The Revenue argued that even if there were variations in reasons communicated to the assessee, the notice's validity should not be affected. The assessee, however, supported the CIT(Appeals) decision, relying on legal judgments emphasizing the importance of consistency between reasons recorded and communicated. The Tribunal noted the disparity in legal interpretations, citing cases where delays in providing reasons invalidated the reopening.The Tribunal examined the facts and legal positions from various judgments. It observed that the reasons were communicated to the assessee after issuing the notice under section 148. Referring to a Delhi High Court case, it concluded that there was no legal requirement for reasons to accompany the notice. Noting that at least one reason communicated matched the recorded reason, the Tribunal referred to a Calcutta High Court case where a notice with multiple grounds, even if some are unsustainable, remains valid if one ground is sufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal found no legal flaw in the reopening process and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to address the other grounds raised by the assessee disputing the additions made by the Assessing Officer.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(Appeals) order on the issue of reopening validity and directing a review of the other grounds raised by the assessee challenging the additions made in the assessment under section 147/144.