Assessment reopening invalid due to lack of independent application of mind under section 147

The ITAT Raipur held that the AO's reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid due to lack of independent application of mind. The AO had recorded reasons based on information from the investigation wing claiming the assessee received commission as accommodation entries, but failed to verify the underlying facts. Bank statements showed no supporting evidence for the AO's conclusions. The tribunal found the AO acted mechanically on borrowed satisfaction without examining available material, making the reopening proceedings legally unsustainable. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148.
2. Assumption of jurisdiction under section 147.
3. Application of mind and independent inquiry by the Assessing Officer.
4. Borrowed satisfaction and mechanical application of mind.
5. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68.
6. Addition of bogus/inflated purchases under section 69C.
7. Non-supply of material used against the assessee.
8. Set-off of business loss/unabsorbed depreciation with unexplained cash credit and unexplained expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148, particularly for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, on the grounds that the approval granted by the competent authority was not in accordance with section 151. The approval was granted by both the PCIT and JCIT, whereas it should have been granted solely by the PCIT as required by section 151(1). The Tribunal found that the approval process did not comply with the statutory requirements, rendering the notice invalid.

2. Assumption of Jurisdiction Under Section 147:
The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had validly assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147. It was found that the AO acted on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without conducting an independent inquiry. The Tribunal held that the AO's action was based on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible under the law.

3. Application of Mind and Independent Inquiry by the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry to verify the information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO's reasons to believe were merely a reproduction of the investigation report, lacking any independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that the reopening of assessment requires the AO to apply his mind to the material before him and form an independent belief that income has escaped assessment.

4. Borrowed Satisfaction and Mechanical Application of Mind:
The Tribunal found that the AO acted mechanically on the information provided by the Investigation Wing without applying his own mind. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on borrowed satisfaction, which is not valid for reopening an assessment. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents to support its conclusion that the AO must independently verify the information and form a belief that income has escaped assessment.

5. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 55,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68, treating the commission income received by the assessee as accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conclusively prove the nexus between the cash deposited in the bank account of M/s Gitanjali Book Depot and the amounts received by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the AO's findings were based on incorrect facts and borrowed satisfaction.

6. Addition of Bogus/Inflated Purchases Under Section 69C:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 50,885 under section 69C for alleged bogus/inflated purchases from M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Co. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of bogus purchases. The addition was based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition under section 69C was not justified.

7. Non-Supply of Material Used Against the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the AO did not provide the material used against him, such as the inquiry reports from the Investigation Wing, until the completion of the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO is duty-bound to provide all materials used against the assessee to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. The non-supply of material to the assessee was a violation of these principles.

8. Set-Off of Business Loss/Unabsorbed Depreciation with Unexplained Cash Credit and Unexplained Expenditure:
The assessee contended that the AO erred in not allowing the set-off of business loss/unabsorbed depreciation with the unexplained cash credit assessed under section 68 and unexplained expenditure assessed under section 69C. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on outdated judicial precedents and failure to consider subsequent judgments that overruled earlier decisions led to an incorrect assessment. The Tribunal held that the set-off should be allowed as per the applicable legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for all the assessment years under consideration, holding that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 147 based on borrowed satisfaction and incorrect facts. The additions made under sections 68 and 69C were also found to be unjustified. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee.

Order Pronounced:
The appeals under consideration (ITA No. 85 to 89/RPR/2024) were disposed of in favor of the assessee, with the Tribunal quashing the assessment orders and allowing the appeals. The order was pronounced in the open court on 12/07/2024.

---