2023 (5) TMI 1039 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes reassessment order due to lack of jurisdiction and vague reasons

Poltavsky TPS Power Services Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-20 (1) New Delhi

Poltavsky TPS Power Services Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-20 (1) New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Merits of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:1. Validity of Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147:The Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, arguing that the notice for reopening was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year 2009-10 and was thus time-barred. The Assessee contended that the reasons recorded for reopening did not meet the legal requirements and that the approval given under Section 151 was mechanical. The Tribunal noted that Section 147 is a substantive provision with inbuilt safeguards, requiring adherence to conditions for assuming jurisdiction. The reasons for reopening were found to be based on general observations and a note from the subsequent assessment year (AY 2010-11), which did not provide specific material against the Assessee. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded were vague and did not indicate any specific material to dislodge the bona fides of the Assessee. The reopening was deemed to be based on a mere suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe,' failing the requirements of Section 147.2. Merits of Additions under Section 68:The Assessee argued that the additions made under Section 68, pertaining to unexplained credits in the form of share application money, were based on surmises and assumptions without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal observed that the original assessment proceedings had involved detailed inquiries under Section 133(6) with the share applicants, and the assessment was framed after considering the replies and documents submitted. The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening did not specify any failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for reopening, particularly the requirement of tangible material, were not met, rendering the reassessment order invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 27/04/2023.