Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for AY 2016-17. The reassessment was initiated based on information regarding the purchase of an immovable property, but the addition was made on the ground of taxability of overseas salary income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions on grounds not forming part of the recorded reasons for reopening, as it violates jurisdictional requirements under Section 147. Since the reassessment was initiated for one reason (property purchase) and the addition was made on a different ground (salary income), the reassessment order was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made on a ground different from the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is valid under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Sections Cited
147, 139(1), 148A(b), 148A(d), 142(1), 144, 144B, 271(1)(c), 90, 91, 148, 80P, 80AC, 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2016-17.
2. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the revised grounds raised
by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the order of reopening of assessment. Therefore, I have 2. Subhash Chandra., Mumbai decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.
At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons for reopening the case were other than the issue on which the actual addition was made by the AO and while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Ltd 331 ITR 236 Bombay, requested to set aside the order of reassessment, Ld. AR also relied upon his written submissions and the same are reproduced here in below:
The case pertains to Mr. Subhash Chandra (PAN: AFEPC7113H) (herein after 'assessee/ appellant'), an individual non resident of India, for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2016-17. The Income Tax Department initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee purchased immovable property worth Rs. 53,82,256 during the Financial Year 2015- 16, but did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17.
The Reason reproduced under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 18.02.2023 is as under:
Information, in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has been received in your case for the Financial Year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17 through Insight Portal. The details of the aforesaid information is as given below.
Transaction Information Information Source Amount date /F.Y Code description 2015-16 Air – 006 Purchased Sub 53,82,256 immovable