2025 (1) TMI 1396 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening assessment based on Insight portal fake invoice information remitted back to AO for fresh consideration

Rahul Kumar Singh Versus AO, Ward-28 (2) (1), Navi Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal for statistical purposes in a case involving reopening of assessment based on information from Insight portal regarding ... Reopening of assessment - information was received from the “Insight portal” that the assessee was a beneficiary of fake invoices - HELD THAT:- As the Ld. AR of the appellant filed a Paper Book which contains all the relevant details and the same were not filed before the AO/CIT(A), the issue is remitted back to the file of AO with a direction that he should take into consideration all these papers. Appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this case were:Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for reopening the assessment was valid.Whether the appellant provided adequate evidence to justify the credits received from M/s Himadri Foods Ltd. as legitimate business transactions.Whether the appellant was given a proper opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings.Whether the addition made under section 69 of the Act for unexplained money was justified.Whether the case should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValidity of Notice under Section 148The relevant legal framework involves the procedure for reopening assessments under section 148 of the Act, which requires the AO to have a 'reasonable belief' of income escapement. The Court referenced the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Raymond Woollens Ltd., which allows reopening if the AO has reasonable grounds for such belief.The Court found that the AO had followed the necessary procedures, including obtaining information from the Insight portal and reports from the Investigation Wing and Central Excise. The AO's belief was based on credible information regarding the appellant being a beneficiary of fake invoices.Evidence of Business TransactionsThe appellant claimed to have provided security services to M/s Himadri Foods Ltd. and argued that the credits were for legitimate services rendered. However, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as GSTR-I, profit and loss account, balance sheet, invoices, or proof of statutory payments like ESI and PF, to substantiate these claims before the lower authorities.The Court noted that the appellant submitted a Paper Book containing relevant documents for the first time during the ITAT proceedings, which were not previously presented to the AO or CIT(A).Opportunity to be HeardThe appellant argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The AO had issued eight notices, which were not adequately responded to by the appellant. The Court observed that the appellant had not availed the opportunity to provide necessary explanations or documentation during the assessment and appellate proceedings.Justification of Addition under Section 69The AO made an addition under section 69 of the Act, treating the credits as unexplained money due to the lack of satisfactory explanation from the appellant. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, citing the absence of relevant documentation from the appellant.The Court acknowledged the AO's reliance on information from the Insight portal and bank statements, which indicated unexplained credits. However, it also recognized that the appellant had now provided additional documentation that warranted consideration.Remand for Fresh ConsiderationThe appellant sought remand for fresh consideration, arguing that the case should be reviewed with the newly submitted evidence. The Court agreed that the fresh evidence presented in the Paper Book should be examined by the AO to ensure a fair assessment.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the reopening of the assessment was valid, aligning with the principle that an AO needs only a reasonable belief of income escapement to initiate such proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of the appellant's cooperation in providing necessary evidence to substantiate their claims.The Court concluded that the case should be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment. It directed the AO to consider the newly submitted evidence and provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case. The appellant was instructed to cooperate fully with the Department in furnishing all relevant information.The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the file remitted back to the AO to frame a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law, ensuring sufficient opportunity for the appellant to substantiate their claims.