ITAT Mumbai rules Section 153C assessments cannot override conclusive Settlement Commission orders under Section 245-I

The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee JV on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that assessment orders under Section 153C/143(3) cannot override Settlement Commission orders under Section 245-I, as the latter are conclusive and cannot be reopened. The court applied the legal maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" to determine that Section 153A does not override Section 245-I provisions. Regarding bogus purchases from thirty vendors, while the tribunal agreed the assessee couldn't fully establish genuineness, it directed income estimation at 8% of contractual receipts rather than complete disallowance. The tribunal upheld the genuineness of payments to IDCC based on substantial evidence including service tax returns, VAT audit reports, and audited financials showing legitimate business operations. Finally, applying the telescoping principle, the tribunal dismissed protective additions for unexplained cash credits since additional income disclosed in earlier years adequately covered alleged cash investments.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legal validity of the assessment order for AY 2013-14.
2. Disallowance of bogus purchases for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16.
3. Disallowance of sub-contract payments to IDCC for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16.
4. Protective addition of unexplained cash credit for AY 2017-18.

Summary:

1. Legal Validity of the Assessment Order for AY 2013-14:

The Tribunal held that the assessment year covered by an order of settlement cannot be reopened under sections 148, 153A, or 153C. The assessee had already settled its income for AY 2013-14 with the Income-tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), which had attained finality. The AO's action of reopening the settled income was deemed impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 153C/153A/143(3) was quashed, and all additions made therein were deleted. Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal was allowed, rendering other grounds academic and dismissed as infructuous.

2. Disallowance of Bogus Purchases for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16:

The AO had disallowed the entire value of purchases from thirty vendors, suspecting them to be bogus. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of bogus purchases but restricted the addition to 15% of the contractual receipts, considering only the profit element. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the entire value of payments could not be disallowed and that only the profit element embedded in the payments should be taxed. It directed the AO to assess the profits of the assessee at 8% of the contract receipts for both AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, following the ITSC's earlier order.

3. Disallowance of Sub-Contract Payments to IDCC for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16:

The AO disallowed payments made to IDCC, suspecting them to be bogus. The Ld. CIT(A), after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the payments were genuine and deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the AO's interpretation of the seized documents was incorrect and that the payments were substantiated by contemporaneous evidence. The appeal of the Revenue on this ground was dismissed.

4. Protective Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit for AY 2017-18:

The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit based on certain seized documents. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the telescoping benefit of additional income offered in earlier years against this cash investment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, applying the principle of telescoping, and held that no separate protective addition was required. Consequently, the appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee on this ground were dismissed.

Conclusion:

All the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed, for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were partly allowed, and the appeal for AY 2017-18 was dismissed.

---