Assessee wins as reopening under s.147 and notice under s.148A(b) held void ab initio for unsigned information

ITAT DELHI - AT held the assumption of jurisdiction under s.147 by the AO was flawed and void ab initio, quashing the reassessment proceedings. The AO's information, forwarded with the s.148A(b) notice, related to alleged receipts for software and telecom equipment but was unsigned and undated; the assessee had approached the HC. The Tribunal found the revenue's reliance on SC authority factually distinguishable and declined to sustain reopening, deciding in favour of the assessee.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after issuing a notice under section 148 and proceeding under section 148A(b)/(d), when the AO's stated justification was to undertake detailed investigation of the assessee's claim of offshore supplies and non-existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

2. Whether formation of belief required for reopening under section 147/148A(d) can be constituted by the AO's intention to make "detailed investigation" or pursue "fishing and roving enquiries", where the assessee had replied to the section 148A(b) show-cause notice with assertions and some supporting contentions.

3. Whether reliance on pending or prospective review petitions/reconsideration of precedent (notably a decision relied upon by the assessee) constitutes a valid basis for formation of belief to reopen assessment.

4. Whether procedural requirements under the amended reassessment regime (including approval of specified authority under section 151 and the effect of the Supreme Court's decision treating certain notices as deemed 148A(b) notices and accompanying CBDT instructions) were satisfied such that reopening was lawful.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reopen under section 147/148A

Legal framework: Reopening of assessment requires formation of belief by AO that income has escaped assessment (section 147 read with section 148A procedures). Section 148A prescribes issue of show-cause notice and consideration of assessee's objections before making an order under clause (d) to proceed with reassessment.

Precedent treatment: Reliance placed by Revenue on precedents (e.g., Raymond Mills / Ernst & Young) for proposition that prima facie satisfaction may suffice and that non-filing of return can justify reassessment initiation. Assessee relied on case law treating supply of software/telecom equipment and royalty tests (Engineering Analysis and other tribunal/Supreme Court rulings).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the AO's 148A(d) order and concluded that the AO did not form a legal belief that income had escaped assessment; rather the AO expressly stated intention to undertake detailed investigation of the assessee's claims (offshore supply, absence of PE, nature of receipts). The Tribunal held that using reopening as a mechanism to investigate or verify claims already articulated by the assessee amounts to permitting fishing and roving enquiries, which is impermissible. The material furnished to the assessee (information) was considered and the assessee had responded; mere desire to investigate further, absent formation of belief, is insufficient to validate reopening.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening under section 147/148A requires formation of belief on available material; intention to conduct detailed inquiry or verify merits does not substitute for formation of belief and renders assumption of jurisdiction void ab initio. Obiter - Distinguishing precedents where tangible fresh material existed or where non-filing of return justified prima facie satisfaction.

Conclusions: The assumption of jurisdiction was invalid; reassessment proceedings were quashed. Ground challenging jurisdiction (Grounds 3 & 3.1) allowed.

Issue 2 - Formation of belief versus fishing/roving enquiries

Legal framework: The AO must have objective material to form belief that income has escaped assessment; section 148A process requires the AO to consider assessee's response before forming such belief.

Precedent treatment: Revenue cited authorities where lack of return or other material sufficed to form a prima facie belief. Tribunal distinguished such precedents on facts because present AO had been furnished with the assessee's specific explanations and documentary claims (offshore supplies, no PE, treaty reliance).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the qualitative nature of AO's order - it conceded similarity to Engineering Analysis facts and yet proceeded solely to verify the merits. The Tribunal found absence of any new or fresh material justifying belief; the AO's course equated to using reassessment as an investigative tool rather than acting upon belief based on material. The Tribunal noted the information forwarded to the assessee was unsigned/undated and that the assessee had challenged adequacy in High Court proceedings, reinforcing that the AO's material was not of sufficient character to form requisite belief.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Formation of belief cannot be postured as an intention to investigate; absence of objective material after considering the assessee's reply invalidates reopening. Obiter - Observations on how non-filing of return may operate in different factual matrices where tangible material exists.

Conclusions: AO's conduct constituted fishing and roving enquiries; no valid formation of belief existed; reopening invalid.

Issue 3 - Reliance on pending review petitions or prospective changes in precedent as basis for reopening

Legal framework: Reopening must be premised on material available to AO, not on contingent outcomes of pending litigation or review petitions.

Precedent treatment: The AO relied partly on the fact that a review petition in a key precedent was pending. The Tribunal examined subsequent developments showing dismissal of review petitions and held that the basis for that element of belief evaporated.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that reliance on pending review petitions as a ground to form belief is impermissible; a contingent, uncertain legal outcome cannot supply the objective basis required. When the review petitions were dismissed, that justification ceased to exist, undermining the AO's stated reasons.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Pending review or hoped-for overturning of precedent cannot constitute objective material for reopening; reliance on such ground is legally unsustainable. Obiter - None material.

Conclusions: The ground of reopening based on pending review petitions failed and contributed to quashing of reassessment.

Issue 4 - Compliance with procedural requirements under amended reassessment regime (section 151, deemed 148A notices and CBDT instructions)

Legal framework: The amended reassessment scheme (post-Finance Act, 2021) prescribes specified authority approvals and specific conditions; Supreme Court decisions and CBDT instructions addressed validity of notices issued in the interregnum.

Precedent treatment: AO relied on Supreme Court order treating earlier notices as deemed 148A(b) show-cause notices and on CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 to validate procedural compliance.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's reliance on the Supreme Court and CBDT instructions and noted AO's assertion that specified authority approval/other requirements were deemed satisfied. However, the Tribunal's primary finding of invalid formation of belief rendered detailed adjudication of other grounds academic. The Tribunal nonetheless noted that the information forwarded to the assessee lacked signature/date and that procedural adequacy claims were contested before the High Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - Procedural compliance under the new regime must be assessed but cannot cure absence of formation of belief; deemed procedural compliance cannot validate reopening where substantive requirements are not met. Ratio - Quashing follows on substantive ground irrespective of procedural assertions.

Conclusions: Even accepting AO's procedural claims per CBDT/Supreme Court, lack of valid formation of belief is decisive; reassessment quashed. Other grounds rendered academic.

---