2025 (9) TMI 350 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment under s.148 quashed where AO exceeded jurisdiction and added income not specified in reasons recorded

Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD), Ward-1 (2), Kolkata

Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD), Ward-1 (2), Kolkata - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO), having reopened assessment under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 on specified reasons recorded under section 148(2), may make an addition in the reassessment for an income-item that was not part of the reasons recorded when the AO thereafter examined evidence and refrained from adding the specific income mentioned in the reasons. 2. Whether the reassessment notice and reasons recorded under section 148(2) are vitiated where the reasons are vague, scanty or do not disclose sufficient particulars (such as the source/particulars of accommodation entries), thereby rendering the reopening invalid. 3. Whether an assessee may raise, for the first time at the appellate stage, a pure legal issue questioning the AO's jurisdiction to make additions outside the scope of the reasons recorded under section 148(2), when all relevant facts are on record. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction of AO to make additions beyond scope of reasons recorded under section 148(2) Legal framework: Reopening of assessment requires reason to believe under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 based on reasons recorded under section 148(2). Explanation/interpretation provisions limit the scope of reassessment to income the AO believed had escaped assessment as forming the foundation for reopening. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows higher-court authority that holds where reassessment is founded on specific escaped-income as per reasons recorded, and that income is not added in reassessment after examination of evidence, the AO cannot independently assess other income items discovered subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded identified a particular alleged accommodation entry of a specified quantum as the basis for reopening. During reassessment the AO accepted the assessee's explanation or otherwise did not make any addition in respect of that specified escaped income. Despite that, the AO made a large independent addition relating to sale of shares in paper companies which was not part of the reasons recorded. The Tribunal reasoned that once the AO did not adopt the escaped-income set out in the reasons as chargeable (i.e., did not make addition for it), he lost jurisdiction under the statutory scheme to make a different/additional assessment for unrelated items discovered during reassessment proceedings because the statutory foundation for reopening (the reason to believe) related only to the original item. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where reassessment is predicated on specific reasons identifying particular income as escaped, and the AO, after examining evidence in reassessment, does not add that income, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make independent additions in respect of other income not forming part of the reasons recorded. Obiter - Observations about policy considerations or general admonition against fishing expeditions during reassessment (implicit in reasoning) are not essential to the holding. Conclusions: The AO's addition in respect of sale of shares (not part of the reasons recorded) was held without jurisdiction and unsustainable; the reassessment could not be used to assess unrelated income once the foundational escaped-income was not charged. Issue 2: Validity of reopening where reasons recorded are vague or scanty Legal framework: Reopening under section 147/148 must be based on sufficient information/material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; reasons recorded under section 148(2) must disclose adequate particulars to demonstrate basis for belief and justify issue of notice. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied controlling principles from higher-court authority that vague, ambiguous or scanty reasons lacking particulars (such as identity of transferor, nature of entries, or source particulars) render the reason-to-believe impermissibly tenuous and invalidate reopening. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the recorded reasons to be deficient: they referred to alleged accommodation entries but omitted essential transactional particulars such as from whom the accommodation entries were received and other material details. Given the paucity of information, the Tribunal held there was no sufficient material to warrant reopening and therefore the reopening was invalid. The Tribunal treated the lack of specificity as substantial because it prevented meaningful testing of the alleged escaped income and permitted expansion of scope in reassessment. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening based on vague or scanty reasons that do not disclose sufficient particulars is invalid and must be quashed. Obiter - Observations that fuller disclosure prevents unsettled assessments and protects assessee's rights are ancillary to the holding. Conclusions: The reassessment was quashed on the ground that the reasons recorded under section 148(2) were vague and insufficient, and hence reopening was invalid for lack of adequate material to form a reason to believe. Issue 3: Admissibility at appellate stage of a legal ground challenging AO's jurisdiction where all facts are on record Legal framework: Appellate authorities may entertain pure legal issues raised for the first time on appeal if the issues are legal in nature and the relevant facts are already on record such that no further fact-finding is necessary; procedural rules permit raising questions of law at appellate stage. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted established appellate principles from superior courts that permit first-time raising of pure legal issues on appeal when the adjudicatory record is complete, and no further factual inquiry is needed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the newly-advanced ground asserting that, since the AO did not add the specific income mentioned in the reasons recorded, he had no jurisdiction to make any other addition. It held that this was a pure legal question based on the assessment record and therefore admissible despite not being raised earlier before the AO or first appellate authority. The Tribunal accordingly admitted the additional ground for adjudication. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A purely legal challenge to AO's jurisdiction, where all facts are available on record and no additional fact verification is required, may be entertained at the appellate stage even if not raised earlier. Obiter - Comments regarding fairness of permitting such challenges are supplementary. Conclusions: The Tribunal admitted and decided the additional ground; the legal challenge to jurisdiction was properly raised and determinable on the appeal record. Cross-references and Final Disposition Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated - the invalidity of reopening for vagueness (Issue 2) reinforces the lack of jurisdiction to make additions unrelated to the reasons recorded (Issue 1). The Tribunal relied on both independently to quash the reassessment. Disposition: On the combined grounds that (i) the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions not founded on the reasons recorded once the specific escaped income in the reasons was not charged, and (ii) the reasons recorded were vague and scanty, the reassessment was quashed and the appeal allowed.