2022 (2) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes tax assessment notices, emphasizes consistency in reasons for reopening assessments

Rajdeep Marketing Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (3) (1), Mumbai And Ors.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the notice and rejection order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-2016. It ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained bank account with Indusind bank - HELD THAT:- As on identical reasons raised for Assessment Year 2012- 13 petitioner’s explanation has been accepted and no addition made, certainly on the same ground, we wonder how an allegation of escapement of income can be made for the subsequent Assessment Years. In our view, the reasons have been recorded without application of mind. There is another Writ Petition for Assessment Year 2014- 15, in which also the reasons recorded for escapement of income is identical to Assessment Year 2015-16 and Assessment Year 2012-13. Revenue made a valiant attempt to justify the reasons and issuance of notice, but when he was confronted with these irrefutable facts, Mr. Walve had no option but to throw in the towel. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-2016.2. Rejection of objections by the petitioner.3. Identical reasons for reopening for Assessment Year 2012-13.4. Acceptance of petitioner's explanation for Assessment Year 2012-13.5. Allegation of escapement of income for subsequent Assessment Years.6. Application of mind in recording reasons.7. Justification of reasons by the respondents.8. Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause.9. Similarity of reasons for Assessment Year 2014-15.10. Order passed for other petitions filed by the petitioner.Analysis:1. The petitioner received a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-2016, alleging escapement of income based on information received regarding cash deposits and withdrawals involving various individuals and companies. The petitioner filed objections which were rejected, leading to the petitioner challenging the notice and rejection order in the present petition.2. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the petitioner also received a similar notice under Section 148 with identical reasons for reopening. The petitioner had previously filed objections supported by an affidavit, resulting in the acceptance of the explanation provided by the petitioner in the assessment order for that year. The court noted that if the explanation was accepted for a previous year, it raised doubts on the validity of the allegations for subsequent years, indicating a lack of application of mind in recording reasons.3. The court observed that the reasons recorded for escapement of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 were identical to those for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2014-15. Despite attempts by the respondents to justify the reasons, the court found inconsistencies and allowed the petition, quashing the notice and subsequent order.4. In a related matter, the court noted the filing of other petitions by the petitioner for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2016-17, where similar reasons were cited for reopening. Following the same pattern, the court allowed these petitions as well, emphasizing the need for proper application of mind and consistency in recording reasons for reopening assessments.5. The court's decision to quash the notices and orders in multiple petitions underscores the importance of thorough examination and justification for reopening assessments under the Income Tax Act, highlighting the need for valid and well-founded reasons to support such actions.