COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-I vs. M/S. INDO ARAB AIR SERVICES

The facts in brief as far as ITA No.292/2015 is concerned are that the Assessee, Indo Arab, filed its return of income for the AY 2002-2003 on 21st October, 2001, declaring a total income of Rs.36,02,307. The return was processed and an acknowledgement was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO received information from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that in the books of the Assessee there were huge cash deposits. The following reasons were thereafter recorded in the file by the 2015:DHC:8885-DB

On the above basis notice was issued by the AO to Indo Arab, on 27th March, 2009, asking it to file its return of income. The Assessee by letter dated 23rd July, 2009 stated that the original return filed by it may be treated as return under Section 148 of the Act. Inter alia the explanation given by the Assessee for the cash deposits found in its account was that they were counter sales of airline business of around Rs.18 crore during the AY 2002- 2003 out of which a large percentage was in cash. Therefore the cash was shown as such in the books which was a normal trade practice. It stated that Indo Arab was the General Sales Agent (GSA) for Saudi-Arabian Airlines both for passenger and cargo. Indo Arab was issuing tickets to various travel agents and also selling air tickets. It had also issued tickets to pilgrims undertaking Umrah/Haj and collected payments from them in cash. It was further stated that the books of accounts of Indo Arab had been lost in a fire 2015:DHC:8885-DB

The AO, however, rejected the above contentions of Indo Arab and held that in the absence of books of accounts the cash deposits in the sum of Rs.3,23,00,550 for Financial Year 2001-2002 was required to be treated as unexplained income. It was directed to be added back to the income of the Assessee.

As far as ITA No.299/2015 is concerned, the Assessee, RL Travels, filed its return of income for AY 2002-2003 on 28th October, 2002 declaring a total income of Rs.45,82,407/-. The following reasons were recorded by the AO for seeking to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Act: “In the books of M/s. R.L. Travels, New Delhi there has been cash deposits of Rs.90,50,000/- during the F.Y 2001-02 as detailed in Annexure - A. Also, in the books of accounts of M/s. R.L. Travels, Trivendrum, it is seen that two amounts of Rs.15 lacs and Rs.10 lacs have been shown as received in cash by M/s. R.L. Travels, New Delhi 2015:DHC:8885-DB

Pursuant to the notice issued to it under Section 148 of the Act on 27th March, 2009, RL Travels filed a letter dated 23rd July, 2009 stating that the return originally filed by it may be treated as the return under Section 148 of the Act.

In response to a questionnaire issued to it by the AO, RL Travels explained that it was a GSA for Asiana Airlines and Oman Air for passenger and cargo. It too contended that inter alia air tickets were being sold in cash/cheque which were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and bank accounts. RL Travels also relied upon the tax audit report given by its CA under Section 44AB of the Act which inter alia stated that its balance sheet and profit and loss account give a true and fair view of the statement of affairs. It was further stated that all the debtors and creditors were duly verified at the time of audit as was evident from the certificate issued by the CA. The CA had also verified the cash sales accounted for in the books of 2015:DHC:8885-DB

However, the AO disbelieved the above contention of RL Travels and held that in the absence of the books of accounts, the cash deposit in the sum of Rs.90,50,000/- ought to be treated as unexplained income. It was accordingly added back to the income.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] through a separate order dated 3rd September, 2012 partly allowed the appeal by Indo Arab and restricted the addition to Rs.46,38,800/-. As regards the appeal by RL Travels, the CIT (A) affirmed the addition made by the AO.

The appeal filed by Indo Arab was allowed by the ITAT by the impugned order dated 18th June, 2014. The ITAT noted that the information in the first place was not correct inasmuch as Indo Arab was regularly assessed to income tax. The AO had himself given a finding that the cash transaction was recorded in the books of accounts. Further the observation that there was no plausible explanation offered by the Assessee from the ED’s point of view was vague and could not form the basis for the AO to form a belief regarding income escaping assessment. The statement given by Mr. Chetan Gupta to this effect was also not enclosed with the information sent by the ED. Consequently both sets of information received from the ED were found to be factually incorrect. The ITAT was of the view that the said information ought to have been verified from the available record by the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2015:DHC:8885-DB

With regard to the appeal filed by the RL Travels, the ITAT noted that it was a sister concern of Indo Arab and relying on the order in the case of Indo Arab, the ITAT by the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014 set aside the addition and quashed the reopening of the assessment in the case of RL Travels as well.

Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, first submitted that since this was a case where returns were not picked up for scrutiny and only an acknowledgement was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. So there was no occasion for the AO to form any opinion in the first place. Consequently, the reopening of assessment could not be said to be on the basis of a change of opinion. Relying on the decisions in Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2012) 20 taxmann.com 797 (Del) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd.(2007) 291 ITR 500 he submitted that there was no reason for the AO to make a detailed investigation and come to a definite opinion on the basis of the information provided by the ED that the income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. As long as there was information received from a governmental agency it constituted a valid and tangible material on the basis of which AO could form a tentative or prima facie belief regarding escapement of income. He sought to further make a distinction between the cases of the two Assessees. In the case of RL Travels, he pointed out that there was additional information regarding the cash transactions entered into by the Assessee with the parties whose identities could not be established.

Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessees submitted that there had to be a nexus between the material given to the AO and the formation of the reason to believe. A reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act could not be based merely on suspicion.

Before proceeding to examine the relevant facts in each of the present cases, the settled legal position concerning the fulfilment of a jurisdictional requirement under Section 147 of the Act prior to the reopening of the assessment requires to be recapitulated. What could constitute 'reason to believe' for the purposes of Section 147 of the Act was summarized by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 as under: “(a) The powers of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary.

In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra) the effect of the amendment made to Section 147 of the Act from 1st April, 1989 was explained. It was pointed out that: “The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147.”

In ACIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), it was 2015:DHC:8885-DB

The decision of this Court in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) provides a complete answer to the specific question whether even where a return had not been picked up for scrutiny and there was only an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the jurisdictional requirement of the AO having to record 'reasons to believe' under Section 147(1) of the Act that income had escaped assessment had to be fulfilled. The Court explained: “13. Having regard to the judicial interpretation placed upon the expression “reason to believe”, and the continued use of that expression right from 1948 till date, we have to understand the meaning of the expression in exactly the same manner in which it has been understood by the courts. The assumption of the Revenue that somehow the words “reason to believe” have to be understood in a liberal manner where the finality of an intimation under Section 143(1) is sought to be disturbed is erroneous and misconceived. As pointed out earlier, there is no warrant for such an assumption because of the language employed in Section 147; it makes no distinction between an order passed under section 143(3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1). Therefore it is not permissible to adopt 2015:DHC:8885-DB

Keeping the above legal position in view when the cases on hand are examined, it is seen that as far as Indo Arab is concerned while the AO set out the information received from the ED, he failed to examine if that information provided the vital link to form the 'reason to believe' that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment for the AY in question. While the AO has referred to the fact that the ED gave information regarding cash deposits being found in the books of the Assessee, the AO did not state that he examined the returns filed by the Assessee for the said AY and detected that the said cash deposits were not reflected in the returns. 2015:DHC:8885-DB

It is in this context that the Court finds that the decision in Mitsui & Company India (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2012) 26 Taxmann.com 1, on which considerable reliance was placed by Mr. Kamal Sawhney, is distinguishable on facts. The nature of the information provided by the governmental agency in that case did not itself refer to any amounts or 2015:DHC:8885-DB

The next question that had to be examined by the AO was whether what was disclosed in the books of accounts was also disclosed in the returns filed by the Assessees. If it was not disclosed, then possibly the AO could have reasons to believe that the cash deposits reflected in the books of accounts may have escaped assessment. However, no effort appears to have been made by the AO to examine the returns filed by the Assessee in either of these cases.

As far as RL Travels is concerned, the further information concerning payments made to third parties, which were unable to be verified by the ED, also required to be assessed by the AO by examining the returns filed to discern whether the said transaction was duly disclosed by the Assessee. It is the treatment of the entries in the books of accounts in the returns filed by the Assessee that would be determinative of whether in fact there was any concealment of relevant information or whether any income had in fact escaped assessment.

With the AO in either of these cases not having adopted that approach, it could not be said that the jurisdictional requirement of the AO having to form reasons to believe on the basis of some tangible material that income had escaped assessment was fulfilled.

Consequently, the Court finds no error having been committed by the ITAT in the impugned orders in coming to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessments was bad in law. This is consistent with the settled legal position as noticed hereinbefore.

No substantial question of law arises. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.