2025 (3) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed as reassessment under sections 147/148 invalid due to mechanical approval without proper application of mind

ITO Ward-24 (3), New Delhi Versus M/s Sudarshan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order. The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 ... Validity of the reopening of assessment - mandation to get approval for reopening - Addition on account of sale consideration - HELD THAT:- The impugned approval which was mandatory before the initiating reassessment was quite mechanical in nature and without proper application of mind and appears to be accord before receiving the reasons to believe by the AO or based same date and specially not mentioned that which material or the relevant para of the material was perused to grant impugned approval. We find material substance in the submissions made by AR and we are of the opinion that reopening action made u/s 147/148 of the Act, without jurisdiction and consequent assessment order was also invalid and legally unsustainable and grounds raised by the assessee allowed accordingly. Addition on account of sale consideration - as per CIT(A) land was not transferred during the year under consideration within the meaning of section 2(47) - CIT(A) while passing the impugned order clearly observed that the Ld. AO has not brought anything on record to show that the land in question was transferred in the AY under consideration. Hence, no any substance in the appeal preferred by revenue and this ground is liable to be dismissed. Revenue appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the validity of the reopening of assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The issues include:Whether the reopening of the assessment was valid and within jurisdiction.Whether the approval for reopening was granted with proper application of mind.Whether the land transaction constituted a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.Whether the addition of Rs. 15.25 crore as sales consideration was justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValidity of Reopening under Sections 147/148:Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessments under Sections 147 and 148 requires a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Approval under Section 151 is mandatory before issuing a notice under Section 148.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized whether the reasons recorded for reopening were valid and whether the approval by the Additional CIT was mechanical or involved application of mind.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates of the reasons recorded and the approval granted, suggesting a lack of proper application of mind.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the approval process was mechanical, as the reasons were recorded and approved on the same day without a clear indication of the approving authority's satisfaction.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument that the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the information received but found the procedural lapses significant.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was invalid due to the mechanical nature of the approval process and lack of jurisdiction.Transfer of Land and Addition of Rs. 15.25 Crore:Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 2(47) defines transfer of a capital asset, which includes sale, exchange, or relinquishment. The Tribunal examined whether the land transaction met these criteria.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the partnership deed, MOU, and other documents to determine if there was a transfer of ownership.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no evidence of a registered document transferring the land to the partnership firm, which is necessary for a valid transfer under Section 2(47).Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the land was not transferred during the relevant assessment year, as there was no registered deed or change in ownership.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's reliance on the MOU and partnership agreement but found these insufficient to establish a transfer.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 15.25 crore, as the land was not transferred during the assessment year in question.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that 'the impugned approval which was mandatory before the initiating reassessment was quite mechanical in nature and without proper application of mind.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that reopening of assessments must be based on valid reasons with proper application of mind, and any procedural lapses can render the reopening invalid.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the reopening was invalid due to procedural deficiencies and that the land was not transferred during the assessment year, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.