2023 (5) TMI 840 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of proceedings u/s 147/148 - notice after the expiry of four years - reasons to believe - HELD THAT - Reasons recorded for reopening does not depicts anything regarding failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment at the time of original assessment. Also gone through the order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act wherein at no point of time the A.O. found that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment. Bare reading of reasons recorded for reopening for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and also the reassessment order at no point of time the A.O alleged that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment. Thus in our opinion the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 is amounts to making of roving enquiries of the settled matter which has already became final in the original assessment after due verification and examination. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Limitation of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147/148 without Satisfaction and Material on Record.
3. Addition of Rs. 34,02,000/- on Account of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction and Limitation of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment for A.Y 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) on 14/11/2014, and the notice under Section 147/148 was issued on 31/03/2019, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Citing various judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Foramer France and the Delhi High Court's decision in D.T & T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years were invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1(a) of the Assessee's appeal on the point of limitation.

2. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147/148 without Satisfaction and Material on Record:
The Assessee argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 was without satisfaction and material on record. The Tribunal reviewed the reasons recorded for reopening and the reassessment order and found no allegations of failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It concluded that the proceedings amounted to roving enquiries into a settled matter, which had already been finalized in the original assessment after due verification and examination. The Tribunal's decision was supported by judicial precedents that restrict reassessment beyond four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts.

3. Addition of Rs. 34,02,000/- on Account of Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated purchases amounting to Rs. 48,49,500/- from M/s Astro Informatics as accommodation entries from a dummy shell company, based on information from the Investigation Wing and subsequent inquiries. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 34,02,000/-. However, since the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal on the jurisdiction and limitation issue, it refrained from adjudicating the merits of the addition, rendering the other grounds academic in nature.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the notice under Section 148 being issued beyond the permissible period without any failure on the Assessee's part to disclose material facts. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed, invalidating the reassessment order and the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the addition due to the decision on the jurisdictional issue.

← Previous Next →