TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed due to invalid assessment reopening and arbitrary income addition under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Ganapati Developers Versus ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata</h3> Ganapati Developers Versus ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of Re-opening of Assessment2. Addition of Rs. 59,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Re-opening of Assessment:The assessee challenged the re-opening of the assessment on legal grounds, arguing that the reasons furnished for re-opening were different from those recorded in the assessment order. The assessee contended that the re-opening was based on incorrect figures and facts, demonstrating non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO did not dispose of the objections raised by the assessee through a speaking order, which is a procedural requirement as laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC).The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for re-opening were not provided to the assessee in the manner they were recorded. There were discrepancies in the figures mentioned in the reasons for re-opening and the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the actual purchases were only Rs. 5,98,336, contrary to the figures mentioned in the reasons for re-opening. The Tribunal held that the re-opening was bad in law due to:- Non-furnishing of reasons recorded in the manner they were recorded.- Non-disposal of objections by a speaking order.- Total non-application of mind by the AO to the information received from the Investigation Wing.The Tribunal cited several judgments, including Pr. CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Delhi) (HC) and Ankita A. Choksey vs. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom)(HC), to support its conclusion that the re-opening was based on incorrect facts and lacked independent application of mind.2. Addition of Rs. 59,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 59,00,000 under Section 68 was arbitrary and without basis. The loan was taken from a sister concern, and the directors of the sister concern were also partners of the assessee firm. The assessee provided all necessary evidence, including bank statements, tax audit reports, and confirmation letters, to prove the genuineness of the transaction.The Tribunal held that when an addition made based on the reasons recorded for re-opening does not survive, making another addition on some other ground is not permissible, as held by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxi Laboratories vs. CIT, IT APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2008 (Delhi High Court) dated 03.06.2011. The Tribunal found that the assessee had proved the genuineness of the transaction, the identity, and the capacity of the creditor company. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained on merits and was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the re-opening of the assessment was bad in law and the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable on merits.
TaxTMI 