2012 (11) TMI 1087 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 55,15,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources.
2. Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w. 148 after four years from the end of the assessment year.

Summary:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 55,15,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources

The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee company had obtained accommodation credit entries from Richie Rich Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2001-02 u/s 148. The assessee provided evidence including account copies, bank statements, and confirmations from Richie Rich. However, the AO was not satisfied, noting the absence of current date confirmations and other financial documents from Richie Rich. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 55,15,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68.

Issue 2: Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w. 148 after four years from the end of the assessment year

Upon appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that the AO had issued a detailed questionnaire during the original assessment, and the assessee had provided comprehensive replies and evidence, including confirmations and financial documents from Richie Rich. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) concluded that the AO had a clear and detailed occasion to consider the issue during the original assessment, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) directed the deletion of the Rs. 55,15,000/- addition.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s decision, noting that the reassessment was based on already disclosed materials and lacked fresh material. The Tribunal emphasized that reopening after four years requires a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which was not the case here. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decisions in Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. and Another vs. ITO and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. C.I.T. & Anr., which reinforced that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment invalid, upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/11/2012.