2025 (6) TMI 1709 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the reopening of the assessment - reason to believe - Reliance on information for the transactions of purchase and sale of immovable properties - non independent application of mind - borrowed satisfaction - HELD THAT - As in the course of assessement proceedings if the assessee is able to explain the source of investment then no addition was required to be made. Hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any merits in the grounds challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The decisions relied upon by the assessee cannot apply to the facts of the assessee s case when the assessee has not filed any return of income and also not produced any supporting evidence to explain the source of the said investment. Unexplained investment - assessee failed to furnish the creditworthiness of the persons from whom the assessee claimed to have borrowed the amounts as well as the genuineness of the transactions - CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer on the point that most of the Bank Accounts of the creditors were having the cash deposits prior to the payment made to the assessee. Now the assessee has filed additional evidence in the shape of confirmation as well as the identity proof of the loan creditors which needs to be examined and verified at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice we set aside the matter to the record of the AO for proper verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee and then decide the issue as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

- Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and based on a genuine "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, or whether it was based on mere suspicion or borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind.

- Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the factual matrix and legal validity of the reopening and assessment order.

- Whether the addition of Rs. 29,37,700/- as unexplained investment under section 69A was justified, given the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding source, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

- Whether the assessee discharged the primary onus of proving the source of funds and creditworthiness of the loan creditors by submitting bank statements, Aadhaar card copies, and other documentary evidence.

- Whether the transactions routed through banking channels negate any presumption of the transactions being bogus or ingenuine.

- Whether the notices issued under section 148 and the assessment order under section 147 were based on proper reasons recorded and independent application of mind, or were founded on borrowed satisfaction.

- Whether there existed a nexus between the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order under section 147.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessment under section 147 requires the Assessing Officer to have a "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reason must be based on tangible material and an independent application of mind, not mere suspicion or borrowed satisfaction. The distinction between "reason to believe" and "reason to suspect" is well established in precedents such as the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in Pr. CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi and Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the reopening was triggered based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) regarding alleged purchase and sale of immovable properties amounting to approximately Rs. 1 crore. However, the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons without independent verification, merely reproducing information, indicating borrowed satisfaction. The assessee had only one transaction of purchase of immovable property for Rs. 31,11,500/- during the relevant year, which was not declared in any return as the assessee had not filed any return of income for that year.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 31/03/2021. The assessee did not file any return or produce evidence explaining the source of investment during assessment or appellate proceedings. The reopening was challenged on grounds that it was based on suspicion and lacked nexus with the reasons recorded.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal distinguished the facts from precedents cited by the assessee, noting that those cases involved filed returns and independent application of mind. Here, absence of return and failure to produce evidence justified the Assessing Officer's reason to believe. The reopening was thus held valid in the peculiar facts of the case.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued no reason to believe existed and that reopening was based on suspicion. The Revenue contended that non-filing of return and information about property transactions justified reopening. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, emphasizing tangible material and non-filing of return.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 147 was valid and not liable to be quashed.

Issue 2: Validity of Addition of Rs. 29,37,700/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69A

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under section 69A, unexplained investments can be added to income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of funds or creditworthiness of the persons from whom money was borrowed. The onus lies on the assessee to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of loan creditors.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of transactions, noting that many creditor bank accounts had prior cash deposits before payments to the assessee. The learned CIT(A) upheld this addition after considering the remand report.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee filed additional evidence post the appellate order, including confirmations and identity proofs of loan creditors, which were not earlier produced. The Tribunal found this evidence material and directed remand to the Assessing Officer for verification and examination.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the assessee had failed to discharge the onus initially, the addition was justified. However, the new evidence warranted proper scrutiny before final determination.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee sought admission of additional evidence and remand for verification. The Revenue did not oppose remand but noted the assessee's prior failure to produce evidence. The Tribunal balanced interests of justice by allowing remand.

Conclusion: The addition was upheld initially but the matter was remanded for verification of additional evidence to ensure fair adjudication.

Issue 3: Whether the Assessee Discharged the Onus of Proving Source and Creditworthiness

Relevant Legal Framework: The assessee bears the primary onus to explain source of investment and creditworthiness of loan creditors by producing relevant documentary evidence.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence such as Aadhaar card copies, bank statements of the assessee and loan creditors, and confirmations post the appellate order. However, these were not considered earlier due to their late filing.

Key Evidence and Findings: The additional evidence included identity proofs and confirmations from loan creditors, which could potentially establish genuineness and source of funds.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed that these documents be verified by the Assessing Officer to determine if the onus has been discharged.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that transactions were routed through banking channels and thus genuine. The Revenue pointed to prior cash deposits in creditor accounts and lack of earlier evidence. The Tribunal allowed for examination of the new evidence.

Conclusion: The matter requires verification of additional evidence to decide if the onus has been discharged.

Issue 4: Whether the Notices and Assessment Orders Were Based on Proper Reasons and Independent Application of Mind

Relevant Legal Framework: Notices under section 148 and assessments under section 147 must be based on reasons recorded after independent application of mind, not borrowed satisfaction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the reopening notice was based on information from the investigation wing without independent verification initially, amounting to borrowed satisfaction. However, given the non-filing of return and non-declaration of immovable property purchase, reopening was justified.

Key Evidence and Findings: Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were reproduced from information received, without independent examination at the time of issuance.

Application of Law to Facts: Despite initial borrowed satisfaction, the reopening was permissible given the material facts and non-filing of return.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee challenged the lack of nexus and independent mind. The Revenue justified reopening based on tangible material and non-filing. The Tribunal upheld reopening but emphasized need for proper verification during assessment.

Conclusion: The reopening notice was valid despite initial borrowed satisfaction, but merits of additions require proper examination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "In the absence of any return of income or otherwise declaration of this transaction by the assessee, there is a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax to the extent of investment of Rs. 31,11,500/- in purchase of immovable property has escaped the assessment."

- "The reopening of the assessment is valid in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the assessee has not filed any return of income and also not produced any supporting evidence to explain the source of the said investment."

- "The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 29,37,700/- as unexplained investment when the assessee failed to furnish the creditworthiness of the persons from whom the assessee claimed to have borrowed the amounts as well as the genuineness of the transactions."

- "The additional evidence filed by the assessee in the shape of confirmation as well as the identity proof of the loan creditors needs to be examined and verified at the level of the Assessing Officer."

- "In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee and then decide the issue as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee."

- The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for fresh verification of additional evidence and proper adjudication.