2020 (6) TMI 372 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal invalidates assessment reopening, deems addition unjustified. Importance of accurate assessment emphasized.

Kilari Venkata Rosaiah Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (1) Guntur

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling the reopening of assessment invalid and the addition made by the Assessing Officer unjustified. The Tribunal found ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non admission of rental receipts from M/s NRI Academy and M/s Reliance Infra Limited - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the reopening of assessment was made on the belief that rental income had escaped assessment. Whereas the rental income does not belong to the assessee and belonged to the HUF of the assessee. Though the PAN number of the assessee is mentioned in the 26AS, the assessee has not claimed the TDS in the return. These issues clearly show that the AO reopened the assessment without proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law, accordingly we quash the notice issued u/s 148. The assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 852 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we hold that once the additions are not made on the issue for which the notice was issued, the AO is not permitted to make any other addition, accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues:1. Validity of reopening the assessment for rental receipts.2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.3. Applicability of Explanation 3 to section 147 in the context of the case.Issue 1: Validity of reopening the assessment for rental receipts:The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The AO reopened the assessment for rents received from two entities, totaling to Rs. 19,37,640, which the assessee claimed were related to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and assessed separately. The assessee argued that the rental income was disclosed in the HUF return and not related to the individual assessee. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 based on Form 26AS discrepancies, but the rental income was not added during the assessment. The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment was based on mistaken belief as the income did not pertain to the assessee, leading to the quashing of the notice u/s 148.Issue 2: Justification of the addition made by the AO:The AO made an addition for short admission of capital gains but did not add the rental income during the assessment. The assessee argued that since no addition was made for the reasons recorded, the AO could not add any other amount. The Tribunal agreed, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision, and set aside the addition made by the AO. The reassessment was deemed invalid as the reasons for reopening did not relate to the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal.Issue 3: Applicability of Explanation 3 to section 147:The Tribunal examined the applicability of Explanation 3 to section 147 in the context of the case. It referenced a decision by the Jurisdictional High Court, holding that Explanation 3 would not apply to new issues that arose after the original assessment. The Tribunal found that the AO's reopening of assessment for rental income, which did not belong to the assessee, was without proper appreciation of facts. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice u/s 148 and deleted the addition made by the AO, in line with the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, finding the reopening of assessment invalid and the addition made by the AO unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper assessment based on accurate facts and upheld the decision in favor of the assessee.