2020 (12) TMI 775 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Quashes Reopening of Assessment; Highlights Violation of Natural Justice and Lack of AO's Proper Application of Mind.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, quashed the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of ... Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - non disposal of objections - accommodation entry receipts - HELD THAT:- As perused the assessment order and we find that the AO has disposed off the objections in the assessment order without passing a separate order which is the contrary to law an deserve to be cancelled on this count, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] Also in the reasons, the AO has recorded that assessee has obtained the accommodation entry of ₹ 60 lacs in the name of 6 dummy / paper companies during the year under consideration, but finally made the addition of ₹ 50 lacs in the assessment order which also shows that AO has not applied his mind before recording the reasons in issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the addition in dispute deserve to be cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Assessment conducted under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act; Addition of Rs. 60 lakhs under section 68 of the Act; Disposal of objections by Assessing Officer; Principle of natural justice violation; Application of mind by Assessing Officer in making additions.Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act:The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. The case was taken for scrutiny after a survey at the business premises. The AO issued notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1) of the Act. The AO concluded that the assessee received money through the banking channel but doubted the genuineness of the business activity. The AO added Rs. 50 lakhs to the assessed income under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order. The Tribunal reviewed the assessment process, submissions, and evidence presented by both parties.Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Act:The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment lacked detail and were based on borrowed satisfaction. The AO made an addition of Rs. 50 lakhs despite mentioning Rs. 60 lakhs in the notice. The Tribunal referred to a case where incorrect reasons led to unjustified reassessment. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to apply his mind before issuing the notice under section 148. The AO disposed of objections in the assessment order, contrary to legal requirements.Addition of Rs. 60 Lakhs under Section 68 of the Act:The AO recorded reasons for adding Rs. 60 lakhs under section 68 but added only Rs. 50 lakhs in the assessment order. The Tribunal found that this discrepancy indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support its decision to cancel the addition in dispute.Disposal of Objections by Assessing Officer:The AO disposed of objections in a consolidated assessment order, contrary to legal requirements. The Tribunal held that objections should have been addressed separately. Failure to do so was deemed a violation of the principle of natural justice.Principle of Natural Justice Violation:The assessee argued that the revenue authorities violated the principle of natural justice by not providing back material for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found this to be a sufficient reason to strike down the assessment.Application of Mind by Assessing Officer in Making Additions:The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not apply his mind properly while making additions. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, quashed the reopening of the assessment, and deleted the addition in dispute. The assessee's appeal was allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal principles and precedents.