AO lacks fresh material for section 147 reassessment based on disclosed NOSTRO entries and agricultural debt relief

The ITAT Chennai set aside reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147, ruling that the AO lacked new tangible material or fresh information required for valid reopening. The reassessment was based on unreconciled NOSTRO account entries, agricultural debt relief amounts, and investment amortization claims already disclosed in annual accounts and income tax returns. Following Supreme Court precedent in Kelvinator case, the tribunal held that reassessment without fresh material renders proceedings null and void. The revenue's failure to raise these issues in prior section 263 proceedings further supported quashing the reassessment. Decision favored the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment
2. Taxability of unreconciled entries in NOSTRO accounts
3. Taxability of amount received under Agricultural Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme
4. Applicability of provisions of sec.115JB to banks governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment, arguing that the AO assumed jurisdiction to reopen based solely on disclosures in the published Balance Sheet, which cannot be considered fresh information warranting reopening. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561 SC), which emphasized that the power to reopen must be based on "tangible material" and not merely a "change of opinion." The Tribunal found no new tangible material or fresh information in the AO's possession and thus concluded that the reopening was invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under section 147 and all subsequent proceedings were set aside.

2. Taxability of Unreconciled Entries in NOSTRO Accounts:
The CIT(A) had confirmed the taxability of net unreconciled entries in NOSTRO accounts outstanding for more than five years, credited to the P&L account. The assessee argued that this sum is not exigible to tax under any provisions of the Act. However, since the Tribunal set aside the reopening of the assessment, it refrained from deciding on the merits of this addition.

3. Taxability of Amount Received under Agricultural Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme:
The CIT(A) had held that the amount received from the Government under the Agricultural Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme was taxable. The assessee contended that this amount was utilized to reduce the amount due from farmers and the provision held against these accounts, leading to a double disallowance. Again, due to the setting aside of the reopening, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of this issue.

4. Applicability of Provisions of Sec.115JB to Banks Governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to observe that the provisions of sec.115JB are applicable even to banks governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Tribunal noted that the reopening of the assessment was based on the existing material already available on record and not on any new tangible material. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as infructuous.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly by setting aside the notice under section 147 and all consequential proceedings, citing the lack of new tangible material or fresh information. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous. The order was pronounced in court on 29th August 2024 at Chennai.

---