2022 (3) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Tax Appeal Decision, Emphasizes Impermissible Notice Reasons

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld.CIT(A)) in a case involving the validity of a notice ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - Whether assessee had proved the identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of share capital/premium received from disputed shareholders? - HELD THAT:- We observe that Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the reasons recorded for reopening that assessee has received share application money from Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who provides accommodation entries. Subsequently when the remand report filed before Ld.CIT(A) in which Assessing Officer has agreed that share applicants do not belong to Shri Shirish C. Shah group. Accordingly, Ld.CIT(A) has held that Assessing Officer issued 148 notice with the incorrect reasons. Therefore Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for reopening the assessment with incorrect reasons which is bad in law. In light of the above facts on record, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the above findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment based on incorrect reasons.2. Addition u/s 68 of the Act on share application monies received from certain share applicants.3. Dismissal of cross objection by the assessee.4. Appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment based on incorrect reasons:The case involved the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer based on the belief that the assessee had received share application money from a person providing accommodation entries. However, during the proceedings, it was established that the share applicants did not belong to the alleged group. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld.CIT(A)) held that the notice u/s 148 was issued with incorrect reasons, which is not permissible under the law. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on judicial decisions and concluded that the material suggesting the connection to the alleged group was found to be incorrect, as accepted in the remand report. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the notice based on incorrect reasons was bad in law.Issue 2: Addition u/s 68 of the Act on share application monies received from certain share applicants:The assessee had received share application monies from multiple share applicants, and the Assessing Officer had made an addition u/s 68 of the Act for a portion of these monies. The assessee contested the addition, providing evidence to establish the identity, credit-worthiness, and genuineness of the share application monies received. The Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to submit a remand report, which confirmed that the share applicants did not belong to the alleged group. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer cannot alter the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment and found in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified based on the evidence presented by the assessee.Issue 3: Dismissal of cross objection by the assessee:The assessee had filed a cross objection raising grounds related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, during the hearing, the assessee did not press these grounds, leading to the dismissal of the cross objection by the Appellate Tribunal.Issue 4: Appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):The Revenue was aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the hearing, the Departmental Representative relied on the Assessing Officer's order, while the Authorized Representative supported the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the submissions and material on record, the Appellate Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the validity of the notice for reopening assessment, the addition of share application monies, dismissal of the cross objection, and the appeal filed by the revenue, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and the tribunal's decision in each aspect.