2021 (6) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Court directs Assessing Officer to reconsider objections in reassessment, emphasizes proper application of mind. Fresh order required.

Harakchand Sohanlal Jain Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (3) (7)

The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to adequately address objections raised by the writ applicant regarding the reassessment ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Non disposing of objections raised against reopening - non dealing with objection raised by the applicant against reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- Applying the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GVK Driveshaft [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the view that disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, though not part of the statutory requirement, as prescribed under the Act, however, same is guided by the directions issued by the Apex Court. The specific objections raised by the writ applicant, produced to this writ application, have not been properly dealt with by the AO. The lapse is in clear violation of the decision of the Apex Court. We are of the view that the AO has passed the order mechanically and without application of his mind. In other words not in a meaningful manner. This writ application succeeds in part. The order disposing of the objections filed by the assessee to this petition is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the AO. Issues Involved:1. Legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO).3. Compliance with the procedural requirements for reopening an assessment.4. Alleged failure of the AO to address objections raised by the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:The writ applicant challenged the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction. The applicant had filed a return of income on 30.09.2012, which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 07.03.2015. The AO issued the impugned notice for reopening the assessment based on information received about unexplained credit entries amounting to Rs. 135,76,68,454/- in the assessee's bank account. The applicant contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the applicant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.2. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings:The AO issued the notice for reassessment based on information from the Investigation Wing, Surat, indicating unexplained credit entries in the assessee's bank account. The AO believed that the assessee engaged in bogus sale-purchase transactions and failed to disclose true and full facts related to these transactions. The AO concluded that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The writ applicant raised objections to the reassessment proceedings, arguing that the AO's action was a mere change of opinion and not permissible in law.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The writ applicant argued that the AO failed to comply with the procedural requirements laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that the AO must provide reasons for reopening the assessment and dispose of any objections by passing a speaking order. The applicant contended that the AO mechanically disposed of the preliminary objections without assigning cogent reasons. The applicant also cited the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd. to emphasize that the AO should have provided necessary approval from the Competent Authority and other documents forming the basis of the reasons for reassessment.4. Alleged Failure to Address Objections:The court observed that the AO did not properly deal with the objections raised by the writ applicant. The AO's order disposing of the objections lacked proper application of mind and did not reflect a meaningful consideration of the issues raised. The court noted that the AO's order was mechanical and violated the procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. The court emphasized that the exercise of considering objections to the reopening of assessment is a quasi-judicial function and should not be treated as a mechanical ritual.Conclusion:The court concluded that the AO failed to properly address the objections raised by the writ applicant and passed the order mechanically without proper application of mind. The court set aside the order disposing of the objections and remitted the matter to the AO for reconsideration. The AO was directed to take into consideration the objections raised by the assessee and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within six weeks. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the assessee could challenge any adverse order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.