2025 (6) TMI 938 - AT - Income Tax

Non-resident assessee fails to explain share investment source despite multiple hearing notices, matter restored for fresh consideration

Pinal Prafulbhai Patel Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (2) (9), Ahmedabad

Pinal Prafulbhai Patel Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (2) (9), Ahmedabad - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:- Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was valid and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.- Whether the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 as unexplained investment by the Assessing Officer (AO) was legally sustainable.- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the conduct of proceedings, particularly with respect to service of notices and opportunity to produce evidence.- Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Reopening under Section 147Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 permits reopening of an assessment if the AO has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on tangible material and not mere suspicion. The principle of natural justice requires that the assessee be given an opportunity to be heard before the assessment is reopened.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO reopened the case based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the company in which the assessee had invested shares had raised capital through bogus shell companies and had no genuine business. The AO observed that the assessee had not filed return for AY 2011-12 and declared minimal income for AY 2012-13, inconsistent with the investment made. The reopening was upheld by the CIT(A) and challenged before the Tribunal.Key evidence and findings: The reopening was triggered by credible information from the investigation unit regarding the nature of the company and the source of funds. The assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence to counter this information during the assessment or appellate proceedings.Application of law to facts: The reopening was based on tangible material and thus valid. However, the assessee contended that notices were not properly served and natural justice was violated.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued improper service of notices and lack of opportunity to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted these contentions but emphasized the material on record justifying reopening.Conclusions: While the reopening was legally valid, procedural lapses in service of notices and opportunity to be heard warranted reconsideration of the matter.Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 30,00,000 as Unexplained InvestmentRelevant legal framework and precedents: Under the Income Tax Act, unexplained investments can be added to income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of funds. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the investment.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO treated the investment as unexplained since the assessee did not provide evidence about the source of funds or the genuineness of the transaction. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting the absence of documentary proof supporting the assessee's claim of remittances from the USA to the brother's bank account for investment purposes.Key evidence and findings: The assessee claimed remittances from the USA to his brother's bank account, who then invested in shares on his behalf. However, no documentary evidence such as bank statements, transfer receipts, or foreign income proof was furnished. The company's financials and investigation reports indicated issuance of shares at premium to investors without genuine business backing.Application of law to facts: The failure to produce corroborative evidence led to the addition being upheld. The principle that unexplained investments are taxable additions was applied.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's argument of non-resident status and banking channel investments was rejected due to lack of documentary support.Conclusions: The addition was correctly made in the absence of satisfactory explanation or proof of source of funds.Issue 3: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Service of NoticesRelevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require proper service of notices and opportunity to be heard. Notices sent electronically must be acknowledged or followed up by physical service if requested. Failure to comply may vitiate proceedings.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee had specifically denied receiving notices by email and requested physical service, which was not complied with. This procedural irregularity was noted by the Tribunal.Key evidence and findings: The assessee resided outside India and was not conversant with the Income Tax portal or emails. The order was served only via email, causing delay and non-appearance.Application of law to facts: The procedural lapse in serving notices and denying opportunity to produce evidence was a violation of natural justice.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that notices were issued and the assessee was non-cooperative. The Tribunal balanced this with the assessee's claim of non-receipt and non-familiarity with electronic communication.Conclusions: The violation of natural justice warranted restoration of the matter to the AO for fresh consideration with proper service and opportunity.Issue 4: Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealRelevant legal framework and precedents: Delay in filing appeals can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, especially when no mala fide is established and the delay is due to genuine reasons.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appeal was delayed by 378 days due to service of order only by email and the assessee's residence abroad and unfamiliarity with electronic communication.Key evidence and findings: Affidavit filed explaining the reasons for delay. No mala fide found.Application of law to facts: Delay was condoned in the interest of justice.Treatment of competing arguments: No opposition to condonation was noted.Conclusions: Delay was condoned.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The reopening of assessment under Section 147 was held to be valid and based on tangible material received from investigation authorities, and thus not illegal or beyond jurisdiction.- The addition of Rs. 30,00,000 as unexplained investment was upheld by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence supporting the source of investment, consistent with the principle that unexplained investments are taxable additions.- The Tribunal observed that 'the appellant had specifically denied at the time of filing Form No.35 to receive the notices on Email, however, the CIT(A) has kept on sending the same on Emails rather than sending physically which could not be served to the appellant,' thereby recognizing a violation of natural justice.- Due to procedural irregularities and non-cooperation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing, along with a direction to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the Prime Minister's relief fund.- The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned on grounds of genuine difficulty faced by the assessee residing abroad and non-receipt of physical notices.- The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for fresh adjudication with proper procedure and fair opportunity to the assessee.