2022 (2) TMI 485 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds decision quashing re-assessment for lack of failure to disclose material facts

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- (1) (1) (2) Mumbai Versus M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. And Vice - Versa

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to quash the re-assessment proceedings as the Assessing Officer failed to show any ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of reasons to believe - mandation of recording reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the aforesaid reasons we find that the ld. AO had not recorded anywhere regarding the failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts in the original assessment proceedings. This is a mandatory requirement of law as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. ITO [2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CIT(A) had quashed re-assessment proceedings on the mere fact that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment had not indicated any failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in quashing the re-assessment proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Validity of the Re-assessment ProceedingsBackground:The assessee, a general insurance service provider, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09, declaring a total loss of Rs. 16,38,13,477/-. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining a total loss of Rs. 16,01,07,118/-. This included additions on account of profit on the sale of investments and disallowance on account of amortization of debt securities. The losses were allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years.Re-assessment Trigger:Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information indicating that the assessee had made payments to hospitals and insured persons without deducting tax at source as required under Section 194J of the Act. This led to the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09.Proviso to Section 147:The notice was issued beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year, invoking the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, stating that the assessee had made payments without deducting TDS, leading to an alleged income escape of Rs. 3,05,59,943/-.CIT(A) Decision:Upon appeal, the CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, emphasizing that the AO had not recorded any failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment. This is a mandatory requirement under the law, as established by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ITO.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's recorded reasons did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal referenced multiple High Court decisions, including Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Allanasons Ltd. v. DCIT, which underscore the necessity of explicitly recording such failures in the reasons for reopening.Key Judgments Cited:- Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ITO: The reasons must clearly state the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.- Allanasons Ltd. v. DCIT: The absence of explicit mention of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts renders the notice under Section 148 invalid.- Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT: The reasons recorded for reopening must be the only reasons considered, with no additions or inferences allowed.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order quashing the re-assessment proceedings, as the AO failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements under the first proviso to Section 147. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The cross objections raised by the assessee on merits were left open and dismissed as infructuous due to the quashing of the re-assessment.Final Order:The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The order was pronounced in open court on 31/01/2022.