Reopening on AIR information and struck-off company assessment upheld, while unexplained money addition was sent back for fresh review.

Tangible AIR information showing a registered property transaction, together with non-filing of a return, was treated as sufficient basis to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, so the reopening under sections 147 and 148 was upheld. The assessment made in the name of a company struck off from the register was also sustained, because striking off under the Companies Act, 2013 did not by itself extinguish statutory liabilities or render proceedings void. On the unexplained money addition, the absence of supporting evidence justified further verification, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the basis of AIR information and the assessee's failure to file a return of income. (ii) Whether the assessment framed in the name of a company struck off from the register of companies was invalid. (iii) Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in full on the existing record.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the basis of AIR information and the assessee's failure to file a return of income.

Analysis: The assessee had not filed an original return of income. The Assessing Officer possessed tangible AIR-based information showing a registered property transaction and, on that basis, formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. At the stage of reopening, a watertight case on escapement is not required. The existence of information, coupled with non-filing of return, was held sufficient to justify initiation of proceedings under sections 147 and 148.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was held valid and the challenge to reopening was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment framed in the name of a company struck off from the register of companies was invalid.

Analysis: The company had been struck off under section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. The decision distinguished the earlier authorities relied on by the assessee, which arose under the Companies Act, 1956, and applied the statutory position under section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 that dissolution does not obliterate liability for the purpose of realising dues and discharging obligations. On that basis, the notice and assessment could not be treated as void merely because the company had been struck off.

Conclusion: The assessment in the name of the struck off company was held to be valid and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in full on the existing record.

Analysis: The assessee had not furnished supporting evidence before the lower authorities to establish the source, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the bank credits. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the matter required verification of the material now relied upon. The issue was therefore restored to the first appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits after examining the evidence and after granting due opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition issue was remanded for fresh adjudication and was not finally sustained on the existing record.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the validity objections were rejected, while the quantum addition was sent back for fresh examination, resulting in a partial success for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For reopening where no original return was filed, tangible information indicating a registered transaction and possible escapement is sufficient to form the requisite belief under sections 147 and 148; and, under the Companies Act, 2013, striking off a company does not by itself nullify proceedings relating to its statutory liabilities.

---