2025 (6) TMI 466 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - borrowed satisfaction or independent application of mind by AO - proper approval accorded u/s 151 or not? - HELD THAT - We observed that CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that AO has not made any enquiry to satisfy himself about the allegations against the assessee and there was no independent application of mind by the AO and he has initiated the proceedings on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. It is a fact on record that the AO has received various information based on the search and survey operation conducted in the case of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and he also accepted that he is providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through the companies controlled by him. AO has noticed and found that assessee has carried out several transactions with those companies which are controlled by Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal. Since AO has observed that there is clear fact on record that assessee has entered into several transactions with those companies in order to verify the same he has proceeded to reopen the assessment. Therefore at the time of initiation of reassessment proceedings the information available with the AO is sufficient to form an opinion that there is escapement of income. Therefore it cannot be said that it is borrowed satisfaction. Obtaining approval u/s 151 - We observed that the same facts were recorded by the AO and the same was documented and submitted before the ld. PCIT-8 New Delhi. Since the facts and material available with the AO which was forwarded to the ld. PCIT which is sufficient enough to accord approval. Since detailed facts were already submitted before the ld. PCIT there is no further requirement to apply further investigation but to granting approval. Therefore we are inclined to reject the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT (A) are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly grounds no.1 2 raised by the Revenue are allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid, specifically focusing on whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had an independent application of mind or relied on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing.

2. Whether the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act by the competent authority was valid, i.e., whether the competent authority applied independent mind before granting approval for reopening.

3. Whether the additions made by the AO under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act on account of unexplained money and expenditure were justified on merits.

4. Whether the assessee's failure to raise timely objection to the validity of the notice under Section 148 affects the jurisdictional challenge to reopening.

5. Whether the reopening was based on sufficient tangible material and credible information justifying the belief that income had escaped assessment.

6. Whether the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to procedural defects in approval and recording of reasons.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening under Section 147/148 and Independent Application of Mind by AO

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 permits reopening of assessment if the AO has "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO held that a prima facie belief based on tangible material suffices. The AO's reasons must demonstrate a link between material and belief of escapement, as per CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.. However, mere insufficiency of evidence is not a ground to quash reassessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO initiated reassessment following information from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries provided by companies controlled by Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal. The AO formed an opinion that transactions with these companies involved unexplained loans. The AO also issued notices under Section 133(6) to related parties, which went unanswered, strengthening the AO's belief.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had sufficient information to form a reason to believe escapement of income. The AO's reliance on Investigation Wing data was not mere borrowed satisfaction but based on credible material and independent judgment. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had no independent application of mind, noting the AO's inquiries and examination of facts.

Key Evidence and Findings: The search and survey operation, statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal admitting provision of accommodation entries, and the assessee's transactions with companies controlled by him formed the basis of AO's belief.

Application of Law to Facts: The AO's reasons were sufficient to constitute a "reason to believe" under Section 147. The AO's inquiries and issuance of notices under Section 133(6) demonstrated application of mind beyond mere reliance on Investigation Wing's information.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the AO's reasons were incomplete and based on borrowed satisfaction; however, the Tribunal found the AO's inquiries and material adequate to form an independent opinion.

Conclusion: The reopening under Section 147/148 was valid and not based on borrowed satisfaction.

2. Validity of Approval under Section 151

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 151 requires that the competent authority (usually a higher-ranking officer) must apply independent mind and record satisfaction in writing before approving reopening. Mere mechanical or ritualistic approval without application of mind is invalid (Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., Agroha Fincap Ltd. vs. ITO, AKG Securities & Consulting Ltd. vs. ITO). The approval must reflect a conscious decision and not a mere endorsement.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had held that the approval was mechanical, citing that the competent authority's remarks were limited to "Approved" and "Discussed with AO. It is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148," indicating no independent application of mind. The CIT(A) relied on precedents where similar brief approvals were held invalid.

The Tribunal, however, distinguished the present case from those precedents. It noted that the competent authority had before it detailed reasons recorded by the AO and relevant material, and the approval was given after due consideration. The Tribunal found that the approval was not a mere formality but reflected satisfaction based on material.

Key Evidence and Findings: The office order notesheet and approval form showed that the competent authority discussed the case with the AO and was satisfied that it was fit for reopening. The competent authority's approval was supported by detailed material and was not a mere rubber stamp.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that elaborate reasons are not necessary if the competent authority is satisfied after considering the AO's reasons. The brief but clear approval was sufficient to meet Section 151 requirements.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue distinguished the present approval from those in cited precedents, arguing that the approval here was based on proper application of mind and examination of facts. The Tribunal accepted this distinction.

Conclusion: The approval under Section 151 was valid and complied with legal requirements.

3. Merits of Additions under Sections 68 and 69

Legal Framework: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits, requiring the assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender. Section 69 relates to unexplained expenditure. Additions under these sections require substantiation of transactions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) did not adjudicate on merits as the reopening was quashed on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal observed that since the reopening was held valid, the merits need to be examined afresh. It remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO found that the companies from which the assessee received loans had meagre declared income and lacked capacity to lend, indicating transactions were not genuine.

Application of Law to Facts: The merits require detailed examination of evidence regarding genuineness and creditworthiness, which was not done due to quashing of reopening.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued additions were justified; the assessee disputed genuineness. The Tribunal left this issue to be decided on merits by the CIT(A).

Conclusion: Merits of additions remitted for fresh adjudication.

4. Timeliness of Jurisdictional Challenge under Section 124(3)

Legal Framework: Section 124(3) requires objections to jurisdiction of reopening notice to be raised within 30 days of receipt of notice. Failure to do so results in waiver of jurisdictional objections (Abhishek Jain vs. ITO).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to raise timely objection to the validity of notice under Section 148, rendering the challenge unsustainable. The assessee did not file objections within the stipulated time despite opportunity.

Key Evidence and Findings: The office order sheet recorded that the assessee's representative was requested to file objections within 8 days but did not do so.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted this but did not conclusively decide the issue as it found reopening valid on merits and approval grounds. The issue was not determinative in the final outcome.

Conclusion: Timeliness issue raised but not decisive in this case.

5. Sufficiency of Tangible Material and Credible Information

Legal Framework: Reopening requires tangible material or credible information indicating escapement of income (IMD Global (P) Ltd vs PCIT, Sonia Gandhi vs ACIT, RDS Projects Ltd vs ACIT).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO relied on search and survey reports, statements of the controlling person admitting accommodation entries, and non-response to notices issued to related parties. This constituted credible material.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Investigation Wing's information and the assessee's transactions with entities controlled by the person admitting accommodation entries formed a solid basis.

Application of Law to Facts: The AO's belief was based on credible and tangible material, satisfying legal requirements for reopening.

Conclusion: Tangible material was sufficient for reopening.

6. Procedural Validity and Void Ab Initio Contentions

Legal Framework: Reopening without proper approval or without independent application of mind is void ab initio (Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd.).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had quashed the reassessment on these grounds. The Tribunal disagreed, finding that the approval was valid and the AO had applied independent mind. Therefore, proceedings were not void ab initio.

Application of Law to Facts: The facts and approvals satisfied procedural requirements.

Conclusion: Reopening proceedings were valid and not void ab initio.

Significant Holdings:

"The reopening under Section 147/148 was based on credible and tangible material, and the Assessing Officer had an independent application of mind, not merely borrowed satisfaction."

"The approval granted under Section 151 by the competent authority, though brief, reflected a conscious decision and satisfaction after considering the AO's reasons and material, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement of independent application of mind."

"The reassessment proceedings are not void ab initio and the reopening notice under Section 148 is valid."

"The merits of additions under Sections 68 and 69 were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) due to quashing of reopening but are remitted for fresh consideration with due opportunity to the assessee."

"Failure of the assessee to raise timely objection to the jurisdiction of reopening notice under Section 124(3) renders the challenge to jurisdiction unsustainable, though this was not determinative in the present case."