2020 (1) TMI 1703 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates Assessment Reopening for 2010-11 Due to Procedural Flaws and Lack of Proper Verification.

Asit Kumar Patra Versus ITO, Ward-23 (3), Kolkata

The Tribunal quashed the re-opening of the assessment for the year 2010-11, deeming it legally flawed due to mechanical approval by the Pr. CIT without ... Reopening of assessment - statutory requirement of Section 151 - as argued approval for re-opening by the Pr. CIT was deemed as mechanical and lacking proper satisfaction - unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- Approval for re-opening of the assessment was given by Pr. CIT in a mechanical manner and without application of mind and does not meet the statutory requirement of Section 151 of the Act. Thus re-opening of assessment is bad in law. AO has not applied his mind to the information received prior to recording of reasons, that the assessment should be re-opened. The fact is that the bank accounts do not belong to the assessee. This is accepted by the AO. No verification is done by the AO to the information received. As decided in SIGNATURE HOTELS (P) LTD. [2011 (7) TMI 361 - DELHI HIGH COURT] information given by Director of Income-tax (Investigation), that amount received by assessee from other company was nothing but accommodation entry and assessee was beneficiary, was not sufficient to reopen assessment when Assessing Officer did not apply his, own mind to that information. Appeal of the assessee allowed by quashing the re-opening of assessment made u/s 148. Issues:1. Re-opening of assessment.2. Addition made on merits.Detailed Analysis:Re-opening of Assessment:The appeal was challenging the re-opening of assessment and the addition made on merits for the assessment year 2010-11. The reasons for re-opening included cash deposits in a bank account not belonging to the assessee. The assessee contended that the bank account mentioned in the reasons was not his and that he had no connection to the cash deposits made. The approval for re-opening by the Pr. CIT was deemed as mechanical and lacking proper satisfaction. Citing case laws, it was argued that the approval process should involve a meaningful consideration rather than a ritualistic approval. The Tribunal held that the approval for re-opening was given in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, thus rendering the re-opening of assessment as bad in law.The tribunal further noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not apply his mind to the information received before deciding to re-open the assessment. It was acknowledged that the bank accounts did not belong to the assessee, a fact accepted by the AO without conducting any verification. Referring to a relevant case, it was established that the AO failing to apply his own mind to the information received was insufficient to justify the re-opening of assessment. Consequently, the tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was legally flawed based on the lack of proper verification and assessment of the information received, thereby allowing the appeal and quashing the re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.Addition Made on Merits:While the appeal primarily focused on challenging the re-opening of assessment, it also briefly mentioned the addition made on merits. However, the detailed analysis and final decision of the tribunal primarily revolved around the legal flaws in the re-opening of assessment. The tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and quash the re-opening of assessment implies that the addition made on merits would also be impacted by this decision, as the entire assessment process was deemed legally flawed. Therefore, the tribunal's ruling effectively addressed both the issues raised in the appeal, leading to the allowance of the appeal by quashing the re-opening of assessment.