Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

PV Corporate Advisory Services vs. Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (07 Jul 2021)

Reopening on the basis of the report of Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by AO is not valid

MANU/ID/0488/2021

Direct Taxation

In present case, the assessee is a company and had filed its return of income on 30th September, 2011 declaring a loss of Rs.3,91,500. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) accepting the return of income.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to explain the accommodation entry of Rs.3 lakh from the said concerns. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that, the assessee has obtained accommodation entry of Rs.3 lakh from a non-genuine firm/concern, AO made addition of Rs.3 lakh to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,400 to the total income of the assessee being the alleged commission @ 1.8% of such accommodation entry. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,05,400.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit. However, the learned CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the issues, i.e., validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit.

A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year, shows that the reopening was made on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for the reopening. The Hon'ble High Court in a number of cases have held that, the reopening on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO is not valid. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings which were based on the report of the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind by the AO have been held to be illegal.

Since the AO, in the instant case, has reopened the assessment on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and there appears to be no independent application of mind by the AO for reopening of the case, therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO in the instant case is not proper. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are illegal and accordingly subsequent proceedings also become illegal and void. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   RE-OPENING   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved