AO's reassessment under Section 147 quashed for borrowed satisfaction without independent verification of cash credits

The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 for alleged unexplained cash credit additions under Section 68. The AO relied on Investigation Wing reports regarding bogus accommodation entries but failed to independently verify transactions, resulting in double entries totaling Rs. 1,00,00,224. The AO recorded an unsecured loan of Rs. 50,00,000 from KCPL but ignored its repayment in the subsequent assessment year. The tribunal found the AO merely accepted DGIT information without forming independent reasons to believe income escaped assessment, constituting borrowed satisfaction contrary to Section 147 requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved: Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147, addition u/s 68 for bogus unsecured loans.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment u/s 147

The Assessee challenged the validity of reopening the assessment, arguing that the reasons recorded were vague, non-specific, and based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO relied on an investigation report from the Banka Group case, which alleged that the Assessee received bogus unsecured loans from M/s. Kotiratan Commosales Pvt. Ltd. (KCPL). The Tribunal found that the AO did not independently verify the transactions and simply accepted the information provided by the Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT), constituting borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including those from the Jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing the necessity for the AO to form an independent opinion based on material on record. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent reasoning.

Issue 2: Addition u/s 68 for Bogus Unsecured Loans

The Assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 68 was unjustified as the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and the source of the funds were established. The Assessee argued that the amount was received through banking channels and repaid in the Assessment Year 2018-19, which was accepted by the same AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to consider the repayment of the loan and relied solely on the investigation report. The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified and quashed the reassessment order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment order and the addition made u/s 68, holding that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the lack of independent reasoning by the AO and the reliance on borrowed satisfaction.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03-01-2024

---