AO lacks jurisdiction to pass reassessment order under Section 147 without disposing objections through speaking order

ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment order dated 31/03/2022 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for lack of jurisdiction. AO failed to dispose of assessee's objections to reopening through speaking order as mandated by SC in GKN Driveshaft case. Assessee had complied with SC judgment requirements while AO breached statutory obligation to address objections before passing reassessment order. Decision favored assessee against revenue.

---

---

The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal in the present appeal are:

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to initiate and complete reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without disposing of the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening notice, in light of the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.

2. On merits, whether the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for foreign donations to Harvard Business School, USA, was rightly allowed by the CIT(A), considering the conditions under Section 11(1)(c), including the requirement of application of income for charitable purposes in India or for international welfare in which India is interested.

Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reassessment proceedings under Section 147 require that the Assessing Officer must issue a notice under Section 148 and provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO laid down a mandatory procedure: upon receipt of the reopening notice, the assessee must file a return and may seek reasons for reopening; the Assessing Officer must furnish reasons within a reasonable time; the assessee may file objections to the reopening; and crucially, the Assessing Officer must dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with reassessment.

Subsequent judgments of the Bombay High Court, including Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd. v. DCIT, KSS Petron Private Ltd. v. ACIT, Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, and Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT, have consistently reinforced the principle that failure to dispose of objections before passing reassessment orders renders the reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction and bad in law. These decisions also emphasize that combined or consolidated orders disposing of objections and completing reassessment simultaneously violate principles of natural justice.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal carefully examined the timeline and procedural steps followed in the present case. The assessee filed objections to the reopening notice after receiving reasons recorded. However, the Assessing Officer did not dispose of these objections by a speaking order before issuing further notices and completing reassessment. This procedural lapse was found to be a violation of the binding Supreme Court mandate and subsequent High Court rulings.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment without addressing the objections, thereby acting without jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied heavily on the detailed analysis in Kesar Terminals and KSS Petron cases, which held that such failure to dispose of objections cannot be cured by restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as it would perpetuate harassment and revive stale matters.

Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed that the assessee complied with the procedural requirements by filing return and objections timely. The Assessing Officer's failure to issue a speaking order disposing of objections before reassessment was undisputed. The Departmental Representative could not controvert this fact.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the law from GKN Driveshafts and subsequent High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the reassessment order dated 31/03/2022 was without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. The application filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules on this issue was allowed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the reassessment was valid and supported the Assessing Officer's order and CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments as they were contrary to settled legal principles.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the procedural mandate of disposing objections before reassessment. The reassessment order was quashed, and the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 2: Merits of Exemption under Section 11(1)(c)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 11(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act provides exemption to income applied for charitable purposes either in India or for the benefit of international welfare in which India is interested. The conditions include that the income must be applied for charitable purposes and the donee must be engaged in activities promoting international welfare connected with India's interest. CBDT circulars and orders emphasize verification of such claims during assessment proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had allowed exemption on merits, relying on earlier Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, where similar foreign donations to Harvard Business School, USA were held to qualify under Section 11(1)(c). The CIT(A) found that the assessee complied with the conditions and that the foreign donations were for charitable purposes connected to India's interest.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's submissions and documentary evidence established that the foreign donations were applied for international welfare in which India had an interest, supported by earlier judicial findings. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence to disprove this claim.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that since the reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the merits became infructuous. However, even on merits, the CIT(A)'s order was in line with judicial precedents and did not warrant interference.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the foreign donations did not fulfill the conditions of Section 11(1)(c) and that Harvard Business School was not engaged in promoting international welfare connected to India. The Tribunal found these arguments unsubstantiated in light of the evidence and prior orders.

Conclusion: The exemption under Section 11(1)(c) was rightly allowed by the CIT(A), and there was no reason for interference on merits.

Significant Holdings:

"We note that in the present case the Assessee has acted in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). On the other hand, the Assessing Officer did not dispose off the objections raised by the Assessee to reopening of assessment by way of a speaking order and thus, failed to comply with judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the reassessment order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is quashed as having been passed without jurisdiction."

"Once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters."

"Even otherwise, we find that on merits the CIT(A) had granted relief to the Assessee by following the decisions of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) did not call for any interference on merits."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of objections before reassessment rendered the reassessment order without jurisdiction and quashed it. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's application under Rule 27 ITAT Rules was allowed. The principles established reinforce the mandatory procedural safeguards in reopening assessments and protect assessees from jurisdictional overreach and procedural unfairness.

---