2025 (6) TMI 233 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - Penny Stock Transaction - AO was in position of tangible information basis investigation carried out by the Investigation wing that the assessee has transacted in shares of penny stock company - HELD THAT - There is clear non-application of mind by the AO as the AO has failed to establish the necessary nexus between the information so received and formation of belief as to how the income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has neither claimed exemption u/s 10(38) nor claimed short term capital loss in her return of income and in such a situation how the information so received can form the basis for formation of belief that income has escaped assessment is not discernable from the reasons so recorded by the AO. Even though the proviso to section 147 is not strictly applicable where the AO has alleged in the reason so recorded that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment the AO has failed to spelt out what material facts have not been disclosed by the assessee in the reasons so recorded. Merely stating that there is a failure without specifying the nature and extent of failure in order to constitute material fact is not sufficient for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. It is a settled legal proposition that the AO has to speak through the reasons and reasons alone and in absence of any reasoning apparent from the reasons so recorded as to how he has analysed the information so received and come to a prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 clearly suffers from jurisdictional defect and the same cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13 was valid and based on proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).

- Whether the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment establish a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

- Whether the principle of natural justice was violated in the reopening and assessment proceedings due to non-disclosure of information relied upon by the AO and failure to provide opportunity to the assessee to verify such information.

- Whether the addition of Rs. 22,58,450/- as unexplained income under section 68 and the further addition of Rs. 45,169/- under section 69C for alleged commission paid to entry providers is justified on merits, considering the genuineness of the share transactions in M/s. Gemstone Investment Limited.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Reopening under Section 147 - Jurisdictional and Procedural Aspects

The legal framework governing reopening of assessment under section 147 requires that the AO must have a reason to believe, formed on tangible material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This belief must be based on relevant information and there must be a nexus between the information and the formation of such belief. Precedents emphasize that mere suspicion or change of opinion is insufficient; there must be a live link between the information and the belief formed.

The AO recorded reasons based on information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, indicating that M/s. Gemstone Investment Limited is a penny stock company involved in price manipulation and circular trading to generate bogus capital gains or losses. The AO noted that the assessee traded in shares of this company during the financial year 2011-12 (assessment year 2012-13) with a trade value of Rs. 22,58,450/-. The AO concluded that income of this amount escaped assessment due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

The assessee contended that the AO's reasons erroneously referred to financial year 2012-13 (assessment year 2013-14) instead of the correct year, leading to non-application of mind and jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal observed that this was a clerical error and did not dislodge the AO's jurisdiction under section 147 since the assessee's trading in the relevant scrip during the correct assessment year was undisputed.

However, the Tribunal found a significant defect in the AO's reasons: the AO mentioned that the scrip was used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income in the form of exempt capital gains under section 10(38) or short term capital loss, but the assessee had neither claimed exemption under section 10(38) nor claimed short term capital loss. Instead, the assessee had offered long term capital gains in the return. The AO failed to specify how the information received led to the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The AO also did not specify what material facts were not disclosed by the assessee.

The Tribunal relied on precedents that require the AO to articulate a clear nexus between the information and the reason to believe that income escaped assessment, and to specify the material facts allegedly suppressed. The absence of such reasoning rendered the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 invalid and the reopening order was set aside as suffering from jurisdictional defect.

Violation of Principle of Natural Justice

The assessee submitted that the AO failed to furnish the data or information relied upon to form the reason to believe, despite requests under section 142(1). The assessee also requested the AO to issue notices under sections 133(6) or 131 to brokers or the stock exchange to verify genuineness of the transactions, which was not done. The assessee contended this amounted to violation of the principle of natural justice by denying opportunity to verify and rebut the adverse material.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not provide the information or records sought by the assessee, nor did they issue the requested notices. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the contention without producing any record to show compliance with natural justice. While the Tribunal did not expressly decide on this issue due to the jurisdictional defect in reopening, the lack of compliance with natural justice principles was noted as a serious procedural lapse.

Merits of Addition under Sections 68 and 69C

On merits, the AO treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 22,58,450/- as unexplained income under section 68, and further added Rs. 45,169/- under section 69C as alleged commission paid to entry providers/operators. The AO relied on investigation findings, SEBI and NSE reports indicating price rigging and circular trading in the penny stock company, and the weak financial fundamentals of the company, to conclude that the transactions were not genuine but part of a prearranged scheme to generate bogus long term capital gains.

The assessee disputed these findings, submitting that the share purchases were made in 2009 at genuine prices, reflected in the broker's summary report, balance sheets, and DMAT statements for multiple years. The sale of shares occurred in 2011-12 through SEBI-authorized stock brokers, with payments made and received through bank accounts, confirmed by contract notes and settlement summaries. The assessee argued that the SEBI order indicated price manipulation in 2009 but not in 2011 when the shares were sold, and hence the long term capital gains could not be doubted.

The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) failed to disprove or rebut the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the genuineness of the transactions. The AO's conclusions were primarily based on information from the investigation wing and SEBI orders relating to the penny stock company's overall manipulation, without establishing a direct link to the assessee's specific transactions. The Tribunal noted the absence of any material evidence to show that the assessee's transactions were not genuine or were part of a scheme to introduce unaccounted income.

The assessee cited multiple judicial precedents holding that additions under section 68 cannot be made disregarding or disproving the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged these principles but refrained from deciding the merits of the additions because it had already quashed the reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We have thus no hesitation but to accept the contention so advanced by the ld AR that there is clear non-application of mind by the AO as the AO has failed to establish the necessary nexus between the information so received and formation of belief as to how the income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee."

"Merely stating that there is a failure without specifying the nature and extent of failure in order to constitute material fact is not sufficient for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act."

"In absence of any reasoning apparent from the reasons so recorded as to how he has analysed the information so received and come to a prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 clearly suffers from jurisdictional defect and the same cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside."

"The factual position that the assessee has traded in the scrip of M/s. Gemstone Investment Limited during F.Y. 2011-12 i.e A.Y. 2012-13 having trade value of Rs 22,58,450/- has not been disputed, therefore, it is more of a clerical mistake where the AO has referred to F.Y. 2012-13 instead of A.Y 2012-13 and the same cannot be a reason to dislodge the jurisdiction so acquired by the AO invoking provisions of section 147 of the Act and the contention so raised is hereby dismissed."

The core principle established is that reopening of assessment under section 147 requires a clear, reasoned nexus between the information received and the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The AO must specify the material facts allegedly suppressed or undisclosed. Failure to do so amounts to jurisdictional defect, invalidating the reopening.

Further, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice, including furnishing the information relied upon and providing opportunity to the assessee to verify and rebut the same.

Finally, while the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the merits of the additions under sections 68 and 69C due to the jurisdictional defect in reopening, it noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to disprove the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the genuineness of the share transactions.

← Previous Next →