2021 (4) TMI 305 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates Reassessment for A.Y. 2008-2009; Quashes Pr. CIT's Order, Upholds A.O.'s Thorough Inquiry Process.

The Tribunal determined that the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2008-2009 was unlawful due to reliance on borrowed satisfaction without independent ... Revision u/s 263 - reopening of assessment - information received from DIT (Inv.)-II, New Delhi that assessee has received accommodation entries - HELD THAT:- Pr. CIT has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under section 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that in A.Y. 2009-2010 the A.O. has recorded similar reasons for reopening of the assessment. However, the same have been quashed by the Tribunal [2019 (4) TMI 357 - ITAT DELHI] A.O. in the impugned re-assessment order has mentioned the information received from DIT (Inv.)-II, New Delhi that assessee has received accommodation entries of ₹ 40 lakhs. However, A.O. was satisfied with the explanation of assessee and did not make any addition after examining the issue in detail vide Order Dated 30.06.2014. It would, therefore, show that A.O. has taken one of the possible view under the Law. Therefore, on the same set of facts the Learned Pr. CIT should not have taken different view by exercising powers under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the re-assessment proceedings are already declared illegal and bad in Law in A.Y. 2009- 2010 in the case of assessee on the same reasons, therefore, in assessment year under appeal also initiation of reassessment proceedings is illegal and bad in Law. Therefore, the same cannot be subject to proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This issue is, therefore, covered by Order of the ITAT, Delhi G-Bench, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs., The Pr. CIT, Circle-1, New Delhi [2021 (3) TMI 1008 - ITAT DELHI] In view of the above, we set aside the Order of the Learned Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi and quash the Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and restore the Order of the A.O. Accordingly, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 148.2. Validity of the reassessment order under Section 143(3)/147.3. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 148:The case involved the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2008-2009 based on information from the DIT (Investigation) indicating that the assessee received bogus accommodation entries of Rs. 40 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that a similar reopening for A.Y. 2009-2010 was quashed by ITAT Delhi, which held that the reasons for reopening were mechanical and based on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Tribunal reiterated that reopening an assessment merely for verification purposes is not permissible under law, as Section 143(2) specifically provides for such verification within a stipulated time frame. The Tribunal emphasized that the A.O.'s satisfaction must be based on tangible material and independent verification, which was absent in this case.2. Validity of the Reassessment Order under Section 143(3)/147:The A.O. initially accepted the assessee's explanation and assessed the income at NIL after detailed inquiries and verification of the documents provided by the assessee, including confirmations, bank statements, and other relevant documents. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) later invoked Section 263, arguing that the A.O. did not adequately consider the seized material from the S.K. Jain Group. However, the Tribunal found that the A.O. had taken a plausible view based on the evidence and inquiries conducted, and thus, the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.3. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263:The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, as the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-2010 were already declared illegal and bad in law on similar grounds. The Tribunal cited the ITAT Delhi's decision in the case of M/s. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that no additions could be made under Section 153A/153C without incriminating material. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT cannot review and revise an order passed under Section 143(3)/147 if the reassessment itself is invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 and restored the A.O.'s order.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2008-2009 was illegal and bad in law, as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. The reassessment order was valid as the A.O. had taken a plausible view after thorough inquiries. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, and the A.O.'s order was restored, reaffirming that the reassessment proceedings were not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal's decision was consistent with previous judgments on similar issues.