2025 (3) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

AO's reassessment under section 147 quashed for lack of proper verification and impermissible review of completed proceedings

Dy. CIT, Delhi. Versus ARM Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And (Vice-Versa)

The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 after four years. The AO attempted to reopen assessment based on information ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice after four years - based on some information received from the Investigation Wing, AO framed an opinion that the assessee has received accommodation entry - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO after considering all the material has framed an opinion. There was nothing more to disclose and a person cannot be said to have omitted or failed to disclose something when, of such thing, he had no knowledge. Not only material facts were disclosed by the assessee but also they were fully scrutinized by the AO in the original assessment proceedings and figure of income as well as the deductions were worked out by the AO. The sale was duly disclosed in the Profit & Loss account which was available with the AO while framing the assessment. Now based on some information received from Investigation wing AO has tried to reopen the assessment without in any manner verifying the said information with the material available on record. This is clearly an effort of the AO to review the completed proceedings. Reopening in the instant case is not by proper application of mind and the reasons recorded by the AO are vague and not supported by independent verification done from the material already available on record. Further assessee has been able to rebut the allegation made in the reasons recorded of receiving the accommodation entry which remained uncontroverted. Thus the reassessment proceedings as initiated vide notice issued u/s 148 are hereby quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. The issues presented and considered in this legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 was valid and justified, considering the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the notice as vague and without proper application of mind.2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 21,79,860 were valid and supported by independent verification.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:The relevant legal framework and precedents cited in the judgment include cases such as Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT-iv, and Ashish Niranjan Shah Vs. ACIT. These cases provided guidance on the requirement for the assessing officer to have valid reasons for reopening assessments and the need for proper application of mind.The Court's interpretation and reasoning focused on the fact that the assessing officer had reopened the assessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding an alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 21,79,860. The Court noted that the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment proceedings, and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were found to be vague and not supported by independent verification.Key evidence and findings included the submission by the assessee that there was no credit entry of Rs. 21,79,860 in their bank account, and the only relevant entry was a credit of Rs. 4,40,520 for the sale of goods to the alleged party. The Court also considered the lack of effort by the assessing officer to correlate the alleged entry with the actual transactions on record.The application of law to facts involved a detailed analysis of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and the legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148. The Court emphasized the need for proper application of mind and independent verification before reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period.Treatment of competing arguments included the contentions put forth by the assessee regarding the failure of the assessing officer to establish a valid reason for reopening the assessment. On the other hand, the senior department representative supported the order of the lower authorities, arguing that the assessing officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment based on specific information received.Significant holdings from the judgment include the Court's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the vague and unsupported reasons recorded by the assessing officer. The Court relied on legal precedents to conclude that the reopening was not done with proper application of mind and that the assessee had successfully rebutted the allegations made in the reasons recorded.In conclusion, the Court allowed the cross objection filed by the assessee, accepted the legal grounds raised, and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The reassessment proceedings initiated based on the alleged accommodation entry were quashed, emphasizing the importance of proper reasoning and independent verification in reopening assessments.Order pronounced on 28/02/2025.