9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1414 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - reasons to believe - additions made u/s 68 - bogus LTCG - Penny stock transactions - HELD THAT - As per report it is found that promoters of penny stocks the share brokers and entry operators are involved in this business of bogus LTCG by rigging the prices. Thus it is evident that in the report of the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) the name of the respondent/assessee does not feature. Therefore we are well justified in holding that the report is a general statement. In the second paragraph of the reasons for reopening it is mentioned that the assessee found to have enjoyed bogus LTCG by transacting in penny stocks. The word bogus which is found in reasons for reopening should have been used after independently considering the assessee s return of income and other details. This is required to be done because before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act the assessing officer must have either reasons to believe by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income Tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment order. This aspect of the matter is conspicuously absent in the reasons which were recorded for reopening the assessment. The second error committed by the assessing officer is disposing the objection raised by the assessee for the reopening of the assessment and by submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated 28.3.2016. It is being a mandate under law as held in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT goes to the route of the matter rendering the reopening of the assessment as bad in law. After going through the computation of income as well as the objections raised by the assessee against initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and observed that the assessee has not earned any long term capital gain during the year. Further there is no exemption claimed under section 10 (38) in the income tax return. Tribunal perused the profit and loss account net income from sale of investment and found the same only to be Rs. 12, 500/-. Further with regard to short term capital loss which was Rs. 35, 31, 930/- it was brought to the notice of the tribunal that during the year the assessee purchased 30, 000 shares of JMD Telefilm for consideration of Rs. 35, 36, 867/- and the same was sold at Rs. 5, 46, 663/- incurring a loss of Rs. 29, 90, 203/-. Thus on going through the profit and loss account the tribunal found that assessee has not shown any long term/short term capital gain/loss and purchases and sales of such shares are treated as stock in trade. Hence the loss in such scrips were claimed as business loss and not capital loss. Thus we find that apart from the jurisdictional error which was pointed out by the learned Tribunal the factual decision has also been discussed by the learned Tribunal. Thus we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Decided against the revenue.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal questions considered by the Court were: a. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in law by holding the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to be invalid, despite the assessing officer having sufficient cause or justification to assume jurisdiction for reopening. b. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting additions made under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 29,90,203/-, when the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions, relying on precedent. c. Whether the ITAT erred in ruling in favor of the assessee when the issue of accommodation entries was central and covered by the exceptions under clause (h) of para 3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Legality and validity of reopening assessment under Section 147 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act empowers the assessing officer to reopen an assessment if there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The procedure requires issuance of notice under Section 148. The reopening must be based on tangible reasons that establish a rational connection between the material on record and the belief of escapement of income. The Supreme Court decisions in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO and Income Tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das emphasize that reasons for reopening must be specific, relevant, and have a direct nexus with the formation of belief. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinized the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening, which were premised on a general investigation report by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) generated through accommodation entries involving penny stocks. The report named various individuals and entities but did not specifically implicate the assessee. The Court found the first paragraph of the reasons to be a general statement without direct reference to the assessee, thus lacking the required nexus. The second paragraph alleged that the assessee enjoyed bogus LTCG, but the use of the term "bogus" was not supported by independent consideration of the assessee's return or other material facts. The reasons failed to demonstrate omission or failure by the assessee to disclose material facts as required under the Act. The Court also noted that the assessing officer improperly disposed of the assessee's objections to the reopening without adequate consideration, violating procedural mandates. Key evidence and findings: The investigation report was general and did not name the assessee. The assessee's return and financial documents did not support the claim of bogus income. The assessing officer's reasons lacked specificity and rational connection to the belief of escapement. Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from the Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the reopening notice lacked a valid foundation. The reasons were vague, general, and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of a reasoned belief based on relevant material. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the assessing officer had sufficient cause for reopening based on the investigation. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that general investigations cannot justify reopening without specific material against the assessee. The assessee's reliance on precedents supporting strict scrutiny of reopening notices was accepted. Conclusions: The reopening under Section 147 was held to be bad in law, rendering the additions made on that basis unsustainable. Issue (b): Deletion of additions under Section 68 regarding identity and creditworthiness of creditors Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits. The assessee must establish the identity and creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions. The judgment in PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj was cited, which emphasizes the need for such proof to sustain additions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the ITAT examined the factual matrix, including the profit and loss account and the nature of transactions in penny stocks. The assessee had treated the transactions as business dealings with stock-in-trade rather than capital gains or losses, and the losses were claimed accordingly. Key evidence and findings: The assessee purchased and sold shares of JMD Telefilm, incurring a loss of Rs. 29,90,203/-. The ITAT found no evidence of unexplained credits or accommodation entries in this context. The assessee did not claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG, and the accounts reflected the transactions as business losses. Application of law to facts: Given the absence of unexplained credits and the treatment of transactions as business losses, the Court concurred with the ITAT's deletion of additions under Section 68. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue contended that the identity and creditworthiness of creditors were not established, justifying additions. The Court rejected this, finding the assessee's explanation and documentation sufficient. Conclusions: The deletion of additions under Section 68 was upheld. Issue (c): Accommodation entries and applicability of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 Relevant legal framework and precedents: CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, para 3.1 clause (h), provides exceptions related to accommodation entries. The issue was whether the transactions in question fell within these exceptions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the primary ingredient of the case was the allegation of accommodation entries. However, the ITAT found that the transactions were genuine business dealings and did not constitute accommodation entries as defined in the Circular. Key evidence and findings: The assessee's transactions were supported by financial records, and the losses were accounted as business losses. No material indicated that the entries were accommodation entries. Application of law to facts: The Court agreed with the ITAT that the exception in the Circular applied, and the allegation of accommodation entries was not substantiated. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the transactions were accommodation entries and thus liable for additions. The Court found this unsubstantiated on the facts. Conclusions: The ITAT's verdict in favor of the assessee on this issue was affirmed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held: "The reopening was done on a general investigation report which did not specifically implicate the assessee. The reasons recorded lack the required rational connection with the belief of escapement of income. The reopening is therefore bad in law." "The assessee's transactions were genuine business dealings treated as stock in trade, and the claimed losses were business losses, not unexplained credits under Section 68." "The allegation of accommodation entries is not substantiated and falls within the exceptions under clause (h) of para 3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024." The Court concluded that the ITAT did not commit any substantial error in law or fact and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The questions of law were answered against the revenue, affirming the ITAT's order that quashed the reopening and deleted the additions.
|
