2021 (1) TMI 1352 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed as reassessment additions made on grounds different from recorded reasons under section 147 held invalid

Jt. CIT (OSD) Circle 3 (1) (1), Ahmedabad Versus M/s. N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd.

The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding reopening of assessment under section 147. The tribunal held that additions made during ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - validity of additions made pursuant to jurisdiction assumed u/s 147 on a ground altogether different from the ground for which reasons towards escapement was recorded u/s 148(2) - HELD THAT:- The legitimacy of addition made in the re-assessment proceedings de hors the reasons recorded is in question. In the circumstances, where the ground on which the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act was exercised have not been reckoned and acted upon in the re-assessment proceedings and no additions were carried out for any of such grounds recorded, the AO could not make additions on an altogether different ground which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him as held in Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013 (2) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and other judicial precedents recorded by the CIT(A). Revenue could not controvert on facts that the additions or part thereof made derives its genesis from the ground taken in the reasons recorded. In the light of settled position of law, we see no error in the findings given by the CIT (A) in favour of the assessee. CIT (A) has rightly approached the issue and correctly applied the law. We thus decline to interfere. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal were:Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was legally justified in making additions of Rs. 84,20,58,519/- towards purchase of castor seeds and soya seeds on the NSEL platform during reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment related exclusively to the allowability of losses from Futures and Options (F&O) transactions debited to the Profit & Loss account.Whether the AO could expand the scope of reassessment proceedings beyond the grounds specified in the reasons recorded under section 148(2) of the Act without issuing a fresh notice or recording fresh reasons.Whether the reassessment order was valid when no additions were made on the ground for which assessment was reopened, but additions were made on an entirely different issue not forming part of the reasons recorded.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Legality of additions made in reassessment proceedings on grounds different from those recorded for reopening assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: The reassessment provisions under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act require that the AO must record reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and must specify the grounds for reopening the assessment. The reassessment proceedings and any additions or adjustments must be confined to the grounds recorded in the reasons for reopening. Judicial precedents cited include:Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2014) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) - held that if no addition is made on the ground for which reopening was initiated, the AO cannot make additions on other grounds not forming part of the reasons recorded.Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (195 Taxman 117) - held that if after issuing notice under section 148 the AO accepts the assessee's contention that the initially believed escaped income does not exist, the AO cannot assess other income without issuing a fresh notice under section 148.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Monarch Educational Society (79 Taxman.com 43) - took a similar view restricting AO to grounds recorded in reopening notice.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, which specifically related to the disallowance of losses from Futures and Options transactions amounting to Rs. 446.34 lakh debited to the Profit & Loss account. The AO's reasons indicated a belief that income had escaped assessment due to allowability of these F&O losses. However, in the reassessment order, the AO did not discuss or make any addition on this ground. Instead, the AO made additions aggregating Rs. 84.20 crore on account of purchase of castor seeds and soya seeds on the NSEL platform through a barter system, which was an entirely different issue not mentioned in the reasons recorded. The Tribunal found that the AO had neither recorded fresh reasons for reopening on this new ground nor issued a fresh notice under section 148.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal scrutinized the assessment records, the reasons recorded for reopening, and the reassessment order. It was found:The reasons recorded under section 148(2) were exclusively concerned with F&O losses.The reassessment order made no reference to the F&O losses issue.The additions made related to purchases on the NSEL platform, a ground not part of the reasons recorded.No fresh reasons or notices were recorded or issued concerning the NSEL purchases.Application of law to facts: Applying the settled legal position, the Tribunal held that the AO's jurisdiction under section 147/148 is confined to the grounds recorded in the reasons for reopening. Making additions on an unrelated ground without fresh reasons or notice is impermissible. The principle is that the AO cannot expand the scope of reassessment beyond the specific escapement of income for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal relied on the cited judicial precedents to reinforce this principle.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the AO's power under section 147 was not curtailed and that the additions were valid. The Tribunal rejected this contention, emphasizing that the law restricts AO to the grounds recorded in the reopening notice and that the AO cannot assess income on new grounds without following statutory procedures. The assessee's argument, supported by judicial precedents, that the additions were beyond the scope of reassessment and hence invalid, was accepted.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was bad in law as the AO made additions on a ground not recorded in the reasons for reopening and did not act on the ground for which the assessment was reopened. Therefore, the additions towards purchase of castor and soya seeds on the NSEL platform could not be sustained.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal, affirming the view of the CIT(A), held:'It is a fact that no addition had been made by the AO on the issue for which the assessment proceedings were reopened but addition was made on a totally new issue for which no reasons were recorded.''The AO was not justified in making an addition in respect of purchases of castor seeds/soya seeds since this issue did not form part of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment proceedings.''When the ground on which reopening was based, no addition is made by the AO, he could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.''If after issuing notice u/s. 148 the AO accepts the contention of an assessee and holds that the income which he initially believed had escaped assessment, has not actually escaped assessment, then he cannot independently assess some other income and if he does, a fresh notice would have to be issued u/s. 148 of the Act.'Core principles established include:The scope of reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 is strictly limited to the grounds recorded in the reasons for reopening.The AO cannot expand the reassessment scope to unrelated issues without recording fresh reasons and issuing a fresh notice.Additions made on grounds not forming part of the reasons recorded for reopening are invalid and liable to be quashed.Failure by the AO to act on the grounds recorded for reopening but making additions on other grounds vitiates the reassessment order.Final determination: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order setting aside the additions made by the AO in the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment order was held to be bad in law and quashed for non-compliance with statutory requirements governing reassessment.