Reassessment notice under section 148 valid within six-year limitation but unexplained investment addition under section 69 deleted

ITAT Delhi held that reassessment notice u/s 148 issued on 28.03.2019 was valid as it was within the six-year limitation period under section 149(1)(b), despite being served later. The tribunal applied section 292BB due to assessee's participation in proceedings. However, ITAT allowed the appeal regarding unexplained investment u/s 69, ruling that AO failed to discharge burden of proof after assessee provided adequate documentation of loan transactions. AO was directed to delete the addition as no independent verification was conducted to challenge assessee's explanation regarding lenders' identity and creditworthiness.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was barred by limitation and hence void ab initio.

2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment and in dismissing the appeal.

3. Whether the addition of Rs. 84,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 was justified, particularly when the assessee had disclosed creditors and loans.

4. Whether the order passed under sections 144/147 was bad in law.

5. Whether the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 148(2) were valid and based on correct facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Limitation of Notice under Section 148

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 148 empowers the AO to reopen an assessment if income has escaped assessment. Section 149(1)(b) prescribes a six-year limitation period for issuance of such notice. Section 292BB provides that if the assessee participates in proceedings, the notice is deemed valid despite infirmities in service. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (AIR 2019 SC 3926) clarified that section 292BB cures defects in service but not complete absence of notice. The jurisdictional High Court in Mayawati v CIT (2010) held that only issuance of notice must be within limitation, not necessarily service.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The first notice dated 28.03.2019 was issued within the six-year period (before 31.03.2019) for AY 2012-13. Although the notice was addressed incompletely and initially not served, the second notice dated 05.08.2019 was served properly. The Tribunal held that the limitation applies to issuance, not service, of notice. Since the assessee participated in reassessment proceedings after receiving the notices, section 292BB applies, deeming the notice valid despite service defects.

Key Evidence and Findings: The first notice was issued at an incomplete address and was not served timely. The second notice was served with a complete address. The assessee participated in proceedings by filing returns and submissions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that issuance within limitation suffices and that participation validates the notice under section 292BB.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued the first notice was invalid due to incomplete address and the second notice was time-barred. The Department relied on issuance within limitation and participation by the assessee. The Tribunal favored the Department's position.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was validly issued within limitation and served effectively; thus, reopening was lawful. Ground No. 1 was dismissed.

2. Validity of Reasons Recorded for Reopening and Order under Sections 144/147

Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO must record valid reasons before issuing notice under section 148(2). The reopening must be based on tangible material. Section 144 provides for assessment when the assessee fails to comply with notices.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the reasons recorded by the AO were on record and related to non-response to notice under section 133(6) regarding purchase of immovable property. Although the reasons were undated, the assessee failed to substantiate any malafide or irregularity. The AO followed due procedure by issuing show-cause notice and providing opportunity before making additions under sections 147 and 144.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's reasons referred to non-filing of return and non-response to inquiry. The reassessment order was passed after opportunity to the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the reasons were validly recorded and the AO complied with procedural safeguards.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee challenged the validity of reasons and the order under sections 144/147. The Department defended the procedural correctness. The Tribunal sided with the Department.

Conclusion: The reasons for reopening and the assessment order under sections 144/147 were valid. Grounds 4 and 5 were dismissed.

3. Addition of Rs. 84,00,000 as Unexplained Investment under Section 69

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 deals with unexplained investments. The burden initially lies on the assessee to explain the source of investment. Once explanation is furnished, the burden shifts to the AO to disprove genuineness. The AO can call for verification of lenders under sections 133(6) or 131.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee disclosed the source of investment as loans from various persons, furnishing confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements of the lenders. The AO made addition solely because the assessee did not produce all lenders for verification, without pointing out any discrepancies in documents. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the burden of independent verification or investigation to disprove the genuineness of loans. The AO's mere insistence on production of lenders without further inquiry was insufficient to treat the investment as unexplained.

Key Evidence and Findings: Detailed loan amounts from multiple lenders were submitted with documentary evidence. No adverse findings or discrepancies were recorded by the AO.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that once the assessee discharges initial onus, the AO must independently verify before making additions. Failure to do so invalidates the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued full disclosure and substantiation of loans. The Department contended non-production of lenders justified addition. The Tribunal rejected the Department's contention for lack of independent verification.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 84 lakh was unjustified and was set aside. Grounds 2 and 3 were allowed.

Significant Holdings:

"The provisions of section 149 prescribes the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. As per section 149(1)(b) notice u/s 148 of the Act should be issued before elapse of six years from the end of the relevant A.Y. ... whereas section 148 enjoins the AO must serve the notice to the assessee, in stark contrast, the provisions of section 149 speaks only of issuance of notice within the prescribed period. Section 149 does not mandate that such a notice must also be served on the assessee within the prescribed period."

"According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee."

"Where the assessee has discharged his initial onus of furnishing explanation regarding the loans and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders, the AO, when the onus was shifted to him, has failed to discharge the same by not making any independent verification to dislodge the claim of the assessee. Having failed to do so, the AO was not legally permitted to consider the loans as unverifiable and the investment made in property as unexplained investment u/s 69."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the notice under section 148 was validly issued within limitation and served effectively; the reasons recorded for reopening were proper; the AO failed to justify addition under section 69 due to lack of independent verification; hence, the addition was deleted and the appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

---