Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2035 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued AO issued notice u/s 143(2) after furnishing of return of income by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As submitted by Ld D.R, it is an internal matter and hence without ascertaining the internal procedures adopted in this regard by the Income tax department, it may not be possible to draw any inferences. The assessee has not brought on record any material to show that the date of filing of return should not be considered to be the date on which the letter was filed with ASK counter or date of filing of return should be the date on which the same was received by AO in his hands. In this era of e-filing also, the date of filing of return of income is taken as the date on which the return of income is uploaded into the computer system of the department. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act after furnishing of return of income by the assessee. Accordingly we reject this ground of the assessee. Approval obtained by the AO from the Commissioner of Income tax is not in accordance with the mandate of provisions of sec. 151 - AO had not quantified the income that is claimed to have escaped the assessment. CIT has not applied his mind on this crucial aspect - in the case of Dulraj U Jain [2018 (7) TMI 2180 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while examining the validity of reopening of assessment has, inter alia, noted that the AO has not quantified the tax which has escaped assessment. Accordingly the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of Assessing Officer himself to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. This aspect alone shows that the AO as well as Ld CIT has not applied their mind on the reasons recorded. In the reasons for reopening, the AO has referred to the affidavit filed by a person by mentioning wrong name. While the afffidavit was given by Shri Vinod Shenoy, the AO referred it as given by Shri Vijay Shenoy. This aspect would have come to the notice of Ld CIT, had he examined the reasons for the purpose of arriving at his satisfaction. As noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has simply written “Yes I am satisfied” against the question “Whether the Commissioner of Income tax2, is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s 148”. Admittedly, the Ld CIT did not refer to the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. In the various cases discussed above, mere endorsement as “Yes I am satisfied” is considered to be a mechanical action. All these facts show that the Ld CIT did not apply his mind on the issue of reopening and has granted his approval in a mechanical manner. In our considered view, the various case laws discussed above support the contentions advanced by the assessee in this regard. Accordingly we hold that the reopening of assessment of the year under consideration is not valid, as the Ld CIT has accorded his approval in a mechanical manner. Accordingly we hold that the reopening proceedings vis-à-vis provisions of Sec. 151 are bad in law and the assessment has to be declared as void ab initio. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the tax authorities. Assessment order is barred by limitation - The assessee has raised this legal ground as the assessment order was handed over to the postal authorities only on 08-042015. We notice that the assessee has drawn inference that the assessing officer should have passed the assessment order only after 31-03-2015, as the order was handed over to the postal authorities only on 08-04-2015. In our view, the assessee has drawn only certain inferences on the basis of surmises and conjectures, as no credible material was brought on record to support the legal ground. Accordingly we do not find any merit in this legal ground of the assessee.
|