AO's reassessment under section 147 quashed for borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind

ITAT Kolkata quashed reassessment proceedings under section 147 finding the AO reopened assessment based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The AO relied on information from Investigation wing stating an individual withdrew huge amounts, but bank statements showed only Rs. 9 lakh withdrawals. The court held there was no live link between tangible material and formation of reasons to believe income escaped assessment. The case was reopened for protective addition but substantive addition was made. Citing precedents from Delhi HC and SC, the tribunal ruled the reopening constituted impermissible fishing enquiry and allowed the assessee's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Alleged borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).
4. Substantive versus protective addition in the assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 53 days. The delay was attributed to personal circumstances involving the counsel's family, specifically the hospitalization of the counsel's elder brother. The Tribunal found that the delay was not attributable to the assessee and that there was a sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

2. Validity of the Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that it was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence & Investigation), Durgapur, regarding cash deposits in a bank account. The AO concluded that the assessee was the beneficiary of these deposits and treated them as undisclosed income. However, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to independently verify the information or establish a direct link between the assessee and the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible under the law.

3. Alleged Borrowed Satisfaction without Independent Application of Mind:
The Tribunal critically examined the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. It was observed that the AO merely reiterated the information received from the Investigation Wing without conducting any independent enquiry or verification. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not demonstrate a live link between the information received and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal referenced decisions from higher courts, including the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which underscored the necessity for the AO to independently apply their mind and not rely solely on information provided by the Investigation Wing.

4. Substantive versus Protective Addition in the Assessment:
The AO had initially intended to reopen the assessment on a protective basis but ended up making substantive additions to the assessee's income. The Tribunal noted this inconsistency and found that the AO's approach lacked justification. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessment for the assessee was framed on a substantive basis, while for Smt. Mira Indra, it was on a protective basis, without adequate reasoning provided by the AO.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind by the AO and the reliance on borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order passed by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the additions made to the assessee's income. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 8th October, 2024.

---