2025 (6) TMI 1909 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - Reasons to believe - determining the ALV of the house properties is not backed on plausible reasoning - HELD THAT - We observed that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by decision of ITAT in assessee s husband case 2022 (1) TMI 421 - ITAT DELHI as held non-recording of the reasons prior to issue of notice u/s 148 flouts the provisions of law and clearly depicts non-application of mind on the part of the ld. Assessing Officer. It is a settled position that even where an assessment has been only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act the reopening notice must satisfy the test of having reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reason to believe has to be arrived at after applying one s mind to the material available and to reach a prima facie view that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. AR has submitted that the property from which the deemed rental income the Revenue proposes to 11 add does not belong to the assessee. When the property does not belong to the assessee the question of taxing the deemed rental income does not arise. Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the submission of the assessee of it not being the owner of the aforesaid properties is false/ incorrect. In the present case the AO prima facie has not done the bare necessary enquiry into the material received before he concluded that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act are valid, particularly concerning the compliance with mandatory procedural requirements such as the dating of reasons recorded for reopening and disposal of objections thereto;

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction to initiate reassessment, given the absence of proper reasons and failure to comply with the legal mandate to dispose of objections by a speaking order as per the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO;

(c) Whether principles of natural justice were violated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in passing the appellate order without adequately considering the assessee's detailed submissions and documentary evidence or affording sufficient opportunity of hearing;

(d) Whether the addition of Rs. 8,61,000/- to the assessee's income on account of deemed income from house property was justified, considering the ownership status, valuation basis, and documentary evidence presented;

(e) Whether the appellate order was a non-speaking order in violation of judicial standards, particularly regarding the rejection of judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee without cogent reasoning.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Validity of Reassessment Proceedings and Jurisdiction of AO

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act requires the AO to have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded must be dated and communicated prior to issuance of notice. The Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO mandated that objections filed by the assessee against reopening must be disposed of by a speaking order before proceeding further. Section 292B of the Act allows rectification of minor defects in notices but does not apply to fundamental procedural defects such as undated reasons.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the reasons recorded for reopening were undated, thus violating the mandatory requirement under section 148(2). This was not a mere technical defect curable under section 292B. The AO failed to dispose of the objections filed by the assessee in a separate speaking order, instead addressing them only in the reassessment order itself, contrary to the GKN Driveshafts ruling.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's written submissions highlighted the procedural lapses, including the undated reasons and non-compliance with the disposal of objections. The Court relied on a coordinate bench decision in the case of the assessee's husband for the immediately preceding assessment year, which found similar procedural infirmities and quashed the reassessment.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the settled legal principles that the AO's jurisdiction to reopen assessment depends on valid reasons recorded prior to notice issuance, and proper disposal of objections. The absence of dated reasons and failure to pass a speaking order on objections rendered the reassessment invalid.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the undated reasons were a minor defect and that objections were addressed in the reassessment order. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect assessee's rights.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid and without jurisdiction, leading to quashing of the reassessment notice and order.

Issue (c): Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by CIT(A)

Relevant Legal Framework: The principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given a fair opportunity to present submissions and evidence, and that the appellate authority consider these before passing an order.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The grounds alleging that the CIT(A) passed the order without taking cognizance of detailed submissions and denied opportunity of hearing were noted but categorized as general and not requiring adjudication in light of the quashing of reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.

Conclusion: Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the issue of natural justice violation in appellate proceedings was rendered academic and was not adjudicated.

Issue (d): Justification of Addition on Account of Deemed Income from House Property

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Income from house property is taxable based on Annual Lettable Value (ALV) as per section 23 of the Income Tax Act. The AO must have jurisdiction to assess a property and the valuation must be based on reasonable grounds supported by evidence. Ownership is a prerequisite for taxing deemed rental income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court referred to the coordinate bench decision in the husband's case, where it was held that the properties in question did not belong to the assessee and some were sold prior to the relevant assessment year. The AO's determination of ALV was arbitrary, without proper reasoning or approval, and included properties not owned by the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: Documentary evidence showed that one property was sold before the relevant year, another was demolished and not in a rentable condition, and one property was not owned by the assessee at all. The AO's escalation of values was not justified by any logical basis.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the properties were not owned by the assessee or were not capable of yielding rental income, the addition was unsustainable. The AO's failure to verify ownership and condition of properties undermined the validity of the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the AO and CIT(A) findings, but the Court preferred the coordinate bench decision which found in favour of the assessee on these facts.

Conclusion: The addition on account of deemed rental income was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

Issue (e): Whether the Appellate Order was Non-speaking and Erroneous in Rejecting Judicial Decisions

Relevant Legal Framework: An appellate order must be speaking and reasoned, especially when rejecting precedents relied upon by the assessee. Failure to provide cogent reasoning renders the order liable to be set aside.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the ground but did not adjudicate it separately since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds, rendering the issue academic.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Assessing Officer (AO) can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the express provisions provided in Section 147/148 of the Act. It is only on the AO strictly satisfying the provisions of Section 147 of the Act that he acquires jurisdiction to re-open an assessment."

"The reasons which are recorded by the Assessing officer for reopening an assessment are the only reasons which can be considered when the formation of the belief is impugned and that the reasons which are recorded by the A.O. for reopening the assessment are the only reasons which can be considered and no substitution or deletion is permissible."

"Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment."

"Where the facts, as recorded in the reasons are not correct and the assessee points out the same in its objections, then the order on objection must deal with it and prima facie, establish that the facts stated by it in its reasons as recorded are correct. In the absence of the order of objections dealing with the assertion of the assessee that the correct facts are not as recorded in the reason, it would be safe to draw an adverse inference against the Revenue."

"The notice issued for reopening has to be set aside and the same deserves to be quashed."

Core principles established include the strict adherence to procedural safeguards in reassessment proceedings, the necessity of valid reasons recorded prior to notice issuance, the requirement of disposing objections by a speaking order, and the importance of ownership and proper valuation in taxing deemed income from house property.

Final determinations:

- The reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 were invalid due to undated reasons and non-compliance with disposal of objections, leading to quashing of the reassessment notice and order.

- The addition of Rs. 8,61,000/- on account of deemed rental income was arbitrary and unsustainable as the properties were not owned by the assessee or not capable of yielding income.

- Issues relating to natural justice violation and non-speaking appellate order were rendered academic by the quashing of reassessment and hence were not adjudicated.