2025 (5) TMI 2089 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the assessment framed u/s. 147 - reasons to believe - assessee had sold immovable property during the impugned year but had not filed any return of income. HELD THAT - We completely agree with the assessee that the reasons forming belief of escapement of income of the assessee for reopening the case completely failed as per the AO s own enquiry and investigation. We agree with the assessee that the jurisdiction assumed therefore by the AO to frame assessment u/s.147 of the Act was invalid. The assessment order passed therefore is quashed. Penalty levied on the assessee on account of addition made to its income in quantum proceedings.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are:

(a) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a belief that income had escaped assessment due to undisclosed sale of immovable property by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11;

(b) Whether the AO's reopening of the assessment was justified in law and on facts, especially in light of the AO's own independent enquiry from the Sub-Registrar office which found no record of such sale transaction;

(c) Whether the AO erred in passing the order under Section 144 of the Act without considering all relevant material on record;

(d) Whether the addition of Rs. 24,23,000/- to the income on account of alleged sale of land was justified, given the absence of material proving such sale;

(e) Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was valid and sustainable, particularly in view of the outcome of the quantum proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a), (b), (c) & (d): Validity of Reopening of Assessment and Additions Made

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to reopen an assessment if he has a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on tangible material or information that gives rise to such belief. Jurisdictional validity of reopening is a question of law and fact, and the AO must have a bona fide belief supported by material. Section 144 allows the AO to make best judgment assessments where the assessee fails to cooperate or disclose material facts.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department (ITD) that the assessee had transacted sale of immovable property during AY 2010-11 but had not disclosed it in the return of income. However, the AO himself conducted an independent enquiry with the Sub-Registrar office, a state authority, which confirmed that there was no record of any such transaction involving the assessee trust in their Master Register.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's own enquiry negated the very basis for reopening the assessment. The AO issued notices under Section 148 and subsequent notices under Section 142(1), but the assessee did not respond, citing non-receipt of notices and claiming no obligation to file return under Section 139(4A) as the trust was below taxable limit. The AO proceeded to pass an assessment order under Section 144 based on the ITD data, adding Rs. 24,23,000/- as income from alleged sale of land.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that non-filing of return was justified due to the trust's non-taxable status but found the AO's reliance on ITD information without corroborative material flawed, especially since the AO's own enquiry disproved the existence of the transaction. The Tribunal held that the AO's belief of escapement of income was not supported by any credible material and was thus invalid.

Key Evidence and Findings: The crucial evidence was the Sub-Registrar office's certification that no sale transaction involving the assessee trust was recorded during the relevant year. The AO's reliance on ITD information alone, without any corroboration, was insufficient. The assessee's non-response to notices was explained by alleged non-receipt, but the Tribunal found no fault with the AO in issuing notices to the registered address.

Application of Law to Facts: The legal requirement for reopening is the existence of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Here, the AO's own enquiry disproved the foundational premise for reopening. Therefore, the reopening was invalid in law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO and CIT(A) relied on ITD information and procedural compliance in issuing notices. The assessee relied on the independent enquiry and absence of any transaction record. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing the absence of material to justify reopening.

Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed under Section 147/148 read with Section 144, holding the reopening invalid. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 24,23,000/- was set aside. Other grounds challenging the merits of the addition were held to be academic and not adjudicated.

Issue (e): Validity of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 271(1)(c) imposes penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty proceedings are consequential to the quantum assessment.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the Tribunal quashed the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds and set aside the addition, the basis for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also fell away. Without a valid addition, the penalty could not survive.

Key Evidence and Findings: The penalty was levied on the same facts that were discredited in the quantum appeal.

Application of Law to Facts: Penalty cannot be sustained when the foundational assessment order is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the penalty appeal and set aside the penalty order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We completely agree with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the reasons forming belief of escapement of income of the assessee for reopening the case, completely failed as per the AO's own enquiry and investigation. We agree with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the jurisdiction assumed, therefore, by the AO, to frame assessment u/s.147 of the Act was invalid. The assessment order passed, therefore, is quashed."

"There is no mistake on the part of AO either in issuing the 148 notice as per the due procedure or in issuing these notices to the registered address of the trust as available with the Income Tax Department."

"Since, we have quashed the assessment order, the penalty does not survive."

Core principles established include:

- The reopening of assessment under Section 147 requires a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, supported by credible material. An AO's own enquiry disproving the existence of such income negates jurisdiction to reopen.

- Reliance solely on information from the ITD without corroborative material is insufficient to justify reopening.

- Non-filing of return after issuance of notice under Section 148 is not justifiable on the ground of non-taxability under Section 139(4A).

- Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the underlying assessment order is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Final determinations:

- The assessment order framed under Section 147/148 read with Section 144 was invalid and quashed.

- The addition of Rs. 24,23,000/- on account of alleged sale of land was set aside.

- The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment.