2024 (6) TMI 562 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening assessment under Section 147/148 invalid when based on stale information from original assessment proceedings

Inderjit Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-I, Bathinda

Inderjit Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-I, Bathinda - TMI Issues Involved:1. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act.3. Rejection of accounts and estimation of profit.4. Change of head of income from business to income from other sources.Summary:1. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act:The appeal was preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, arising out of an appeal against the order dated 08.01.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee argued that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Assessing Officer (AO) was illegal as it was based on stale information and constituted a change of opinion. The AO had earlier conducted a scrutiny assessment and accepted the returned income except for an estimated addition of Rs. 3 lakhs. The reopening was based on a survey conducted on 27.05.2011 and subsequent inquiries, which were already considered in the original assessment.2. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act:The Assessee contended that the reopening was based on the same information available during the original assessment, thus constituting a change of opinion. The AO had no fresh information to justify the reopening. The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it was based on information already processed during the original assessment. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of Rasalika Trading & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd., confirming that reopening based on the same information constitutes a change of opinion.3. Rejection of accounts and estimation of profit:The AO rejected the Assessee's accounts and estimated the profit at 10% of the turnover, subject to deduction of depreciation allowance. The Assessee argued that the rejection was unjustified as no incriminating material was found during the survey, and the accounts were regularly maintained and audited. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of accounts was based on the non-availability of addresses of construction workers in the muster roll, which was not a statutory requirement. The Tribunal held that the AO's action was unjustified and based on mere suspicion.4. Change of head of income from business to income from other sources:The AO treated the receipt of Rs. 3.46 crores from SNSPL as 'income from other sources' instead of business income. The Assessee argued that this change did not result in any escapement of income as both heads of income are taxed at the same rate. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee, stating that the AO had not specified any bogus or inflated expenditure in the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal concluded that the change of head of income did not justify the reopening of assessment.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment order. The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 was found to be vitiated, rendering the reassessment illegal. The other grounds raised by the Assessee were left open as the primary issue of jurisdiction was decided in their favor.