Reassessment u/s 147 quashed for bogus purchase allegation based solely on uncorroborated info, lacking independent material

ITAT set aside the reassessment initiated u/s 147 on the allegation of bogus purchases. The AO had reopened the assessment solely on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing and a third-party statement indicating issuance of bogus bills, without any independent, concrete material linking the assessee to such accommodation entries. ITAT noted that the assessee's transactions were duly recorded in GST returns and payments were made through banking channels, and that CIT(A)'s conclusions were based on mere suspicion unsupported by documentary evidence. Holding that "reason to believe" cannot rest on uncorroborated information alone, ITAT declared the reopening invalid, vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings, and allowed the assessee's appeal.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147, pursuant to notice under section 148, based solely on information from search and investigation in the case of a third party and unaccompanied by concrete incriminating material against the assessee, are valid in law.

1.2 Consequentially, whether the assessment order making addition on account of alleged bogus purchases could be sustained, and whether examination of the merits of the addition was required once the reassessment itself was held invalid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment under section 147/148 based only on third-party search information and statement

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional requirement of "reasons to believe" under section 147 for issuance of notice under section 148, in the context of information received from the Investigation Wing after search under section 132 in the case of a third party. Reference was made to the principle emerging from judicial precedent that reopening cannot be based on vague, cryptic, or uncorroborated information without concrete material linking the assessee to escapement of income.

2.2 The Tribunal relied on the decision of a High Court wherein reopening was held invalid where the reasons were vague and lacked nexus and application of mind, and where the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate prima facie escapement of income on the basis of the information received.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of information from the DCIT, Central Circle, obtained during search in the case of "Deepak Sharma Group", according to which that group was allegedly issuing bogus purchase bills without actual delivery of goods and the assessee was treated as one of the beneficiaries.

2.4 It was found that, apart from the statement of the third party (Deepak Sharma) recorded during search, no documentary evidence or incriminating material was brought on record to demonstrate that the assessee had in fact obtained bogus bills or had not received goods. The reasons for reopening and the show cause notice did not disclose any concrete material, documents, or receipts linking the assessee to a bogus transaction.

2.5 The Tribunal underscored that the assessee had produced invoices, books of account, stock register, confirmations, details of sales out of the impugned purchases, GST returns and bank statements showing that the transactions were routed through banking channels and reflected in tax compliances. Even the appellate authority had accepted that transactions were recorded in GST returns and payments were made through banking channels.

2.6 The Tribunal held that the suspicion entertained by the appellate authority, arising only from the third party's statement that he was issuing bogus bills, without any supporting material against the assessee, could not substitute the statutory requirement of concrete material forming a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment.

2.7 It was specifically held that mere information from the Investigation Wing, without bringing on record any concrete evidence against the assessee, cannot constitute a valid basis for reopening under section 147. Reliance solely on a third-party statement recorded during search, without confronting the assessee with any incriminating material, was considered inadequate to assume jurisdiction.

Conclusions

2.8 The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons to believe, in the absence of concrete incriminating evidence against the assessee, and that reopening under section 147 based merely on a piece of information from the Investigation Wing was invalid.

2.9 Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were held vitiated for want of valid jurisdiction under section 147, and the reassessment order was quashed.

Issue 2: Sustainability of addition for alleged bogus purchases and need to adjudicate merits after quashing reassessment

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was made solely in consequence of the reassessment proceedings. Since the very foundation of the reassessment was held to be invalid and the assessment order was quashed, the Tribunal considered whether it was necessary to examine the merits of the addition relating to bogus purchases.

2.11 The Tribunal observed that, once the reassessment itself is annulled on a technical jurisdictional ground, any adjudication on the merits of additions would be merely academic.

Conclusions

2.12 Having quashed the reassessment order, the Tribunal declined to render findings on the merits of the addition for alleged bogus purchases, treating such exercise as academic in nature.

2.13 The appeal was allowed on the technical ground of invalid reopening, with the result that the impugned addition did not survive.

---