Section 148 reopening invalid after four years when assessee disclosed all primary facts during scrutiny assessment

ITAT Jaipur held that reopening assessments under section 148 after four years was invalid as the assessee had disclosed all primary facts during scrutiny assessment, with no failure to disclose material facts. The reopening for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 was quashed. For bogus purchases estimation, the tribunal found that for AY 2011-12, the assessee's declared gross profit of -1.38% was better than the average past history of -2.38%, therefore no addition was warranted despite rejection of books under section 145(3). The addition for AY 2011-12 was deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of the assessment.
2. Addition on account of unverifiable purchases and rejection of books of account u/s 145(3).

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of the Assessment

The assessee challenged the validity of reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2010-11, arguing that the original assessments were completed u/s 143(3) and no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts was established by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Tribunal noted that the A.O. issued notices u/s 148 after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment years without alleging any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts. The A.O.'s reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchases, but the assessee had already provided all necessary details during the original scrutiny assessments. The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it violated the proviso to Section 147, which bars reopening after four years unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Consequently, the reopening for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2010-11 was quashed.

For A.Y. 2011-12, the return was processed u/s 143(1), and the Tribunal upheld the reopening as the proviso to Section 147 was not applicable.

Issue 2: Addition on Account of Unverifiable Purchases and Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145(3)

The A.O. rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) due to unverifiable purchases and made a trading addition by estimating 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to a lump sum amount. The Tribunal emphasized that after rejecting books of account, the income should be estimated based on the past history of the Gross Profit (G.P.) declared by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the G.P. declared by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2010-11 was better than the average G.P. of past years. Therefore, no addition was warranted after quashing the reopening for these years.

For A.Y. 2011-12, the Tribunal noted that the G.P. declared was better than the average of past years, and hence, no addition was warranted even after rejecting the books of account.

Conclusion:

- The appeals for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2010-11 were allowed, quashing the reopening and the consequent additions.
- The appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was partly allowed, deleting the addition made by the A.O.

---