2025 (5) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason was recorded on the information received from investigation wing wherein it was held that assessee was one of the beneficiary to claim bogus LTCG through fabricated contract notes shares sale purchase - HELD THAT - AO in order to justify the invocation of Section 148 was undoubtedly obliged to allude to the material facts that may have formed part of the report of the Investigation Wing and which would have given at least a broad indication of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged manipulation of the 19 penny scrips and thus rendering support to the allegation of a wrongful claim of Long Term Capital Gains. Since the reasons which were recorded by the AO in this respect were gloriously silent and failed to make even a rudimentary disclosure on the basis of which we could have examined whether the formation of opinion even on a prima facie basis would sustain we find ourselves unable to uphold the action of reassessment. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

• Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) was valid and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) adequately recorded and disclosed the reasons forming the basis of the opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, as mandated by law.
• Whether the AO complied with the procedural safeguards, including furnishing the assessee with the reasons for reopening and the right to file objections, as laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.
• Whether the information relied upon by the AO, which originated from the Investigation Wing and pertained primarily to another individual, could validly support the reassessment proceedings against the writ petitioner.
• Whether the AO was obliged to disclose the material particulars or investigation reports implicating the writ petitioner in the alleged manipulation of penny stock trades and bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG).
• The extent to which subsequent affidavits filed by the respondents can be considered to bolster or supplement the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148

The legal framework governing reassessment proceedings under Section 148 requires the AO to have a "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This reason must be recorded in writing and communicated to the assessee, thereby enabling the assessee to file objections before the reopening is finalized. The Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. emphasized the necessity of furnishing the reasons to the assessee to ensure fairness and transparency.

The Court noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31 March 2021, prior to the promulgation of the Finance Act, 2021, which introduced additional procedural safeguards. However, the respondents failed to place the writ petitioner on due notice regarding the right to furnish objections as mandated by the Supreme Court's directions. The reasons for reopening were disclosed only during the reassessment proceedings, which the Court found procedurally deficient.

Further, the reasons recorded by the AO relied heavily on information received from the Investigation Wing concerning alleged bogus LTCG claims and manipulation of penny stock trades. However, the material placed on record revealed that the initial information pertained primarily to another individual, Dayand Singh, and not directly to the writ petitioner.

Disclosure and Sufficiency of Reasons for Reopening

The reasons recorded by the AO, as extracted from Annexure P-6, indicated that the reopening was based on information that Dayand Singh had claimed bogus LTCG and that 19 penny scrips were manipulated through artificial transactions to generate bogus LTCG/STCL entries. The AO alleged that the writ petitioner was one of the beneficiaries who availed accommodation entries of bogus LTCG.

However, the Court observed that the reasons failed to disclose any material particulars or specific information implicating the writ petitioner. The AO's reasons were silent on any direct evidence or nexus between the petitioner and the alleged manipulation. The Court underscored that the AO is obliged to disclose at least a broad indication of the material facts forming the basis of the opinion. Without such disclosure, the formation of opinion cannot be examined or sustained.

The respondents' counter affidavit asserted that the Investigation Wing's report contained information about 2,404 beneficiaries, including the petitioner, but refused to disclose this material to the petitioner, contending that the AO was not bound to do so. The Court found this stand self-contradictory and legally untenable, emphasizing that nondisclosure of relevant material defeats the purpose of procedural fairness and transparency in reassessment proceedings.

Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner objected to the reassessment on the ground that the notice under Section 148 was based solely on information related to Dayand Singh, with no material implicating the petitioner. The AO rejected these objections, reiterating reliance on the Investigation Wing's report and stating that the exact value of capital gains would be verified during assessment.

The respondents sought to justify the reassessment by highlighting detailed disclosures in the counter affidavit regarding the modus operandi of bogus trading and the involvement of multiple beneficiaries. However, the Court clarified that the validity of reassessment must be judged solely on the reasons recorded by the AO at the time of reopening, not on subsequent affidavits or pleadings. This principle preserves the integrity of the reassessment process and prevents after-the-fact justification.

Given the absence of any material disclosed in the reasons recorded by the AO that directly implicated the petitioner, the Court held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable. The AO's failure to disclose relevant material and reliance on information pertaining primarily to another person rendered the formation of opinion invalid.

Procedural Compliance and Right to Object

The Court noted the procedural lapse in not informing the petitioner of the right to file objections upon issuance of the notice under Section 148, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts. This omission further vitiated the reassessment proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The validity of an action referable to Section 148 would have to be examined and evaluated basis the reasons assigned in the order framed by the AO as opposed to what may be averred and alleged in a counter affidavit which comes to be subsequently filed in proceedings before this Court."

"The AO in order to justify the invocation of Section 148 was undoubtedly obliged to allude to the material facts that may have formed part of the report of the Investigation Wing and which would have given at least a broad indication of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged manipulation of the 19 penny scrips and thus rendering support to the allegation of a wrongful claim of Long Term Capital Gains."

"Since the reasons which were recorded by the AO in this respect were gloriously silent and failed to make even a rudimentary disclosure on the basis of which we could have examined whether the formation of opinion even on a prima facie basis would sustain, we find ourselves unable to uphold the action of reassessment."

The Court quashed the notice dated 31 March 2021 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 06 March 2022 disposing of objections, holding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the absence of disclosed reasons implicating the petitioner and procedural deficiencies.

However, the Court left open the possibility for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible by law, thereby preserving the respondents' statutory rights subject to compliance with procedural and substantive legal requirements.