JINDAL PIPES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Jindal Pipes Ltd., vs ACIT, Plot No.5, 2nd Floor, Circle 4(1), Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACJ2055K)

Appellant by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Chadha, CA Respondent by Sh Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 03.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2017

ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 by the ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New

Delhi and pertains to assessment year 2004-05.

case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the

Act) on 18.12.2006 at an income of Rs. 17,84,18,464/- as against

the returned income of Rs. 17,72,42,361/-. Subsequently, the

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

assessment was reopened u/s 148 after recording the following

reasons:-

“Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) at income of Rs.17,84,18,464/-. The scrutiny of assessment records revealed that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs.50,34,277/- on account of bank guarantee as per notes to accounts column 7. This expenditure was in the nature of contingent liability winch should have been disallowed. The mistake resulted in under assessment of income of Rs.50,34,277/- involving tax effect of Rs. 24,02,043/-.

Further scrutiny of assessment records revealed that the assessee had residential building and received rental income on it. Depreciation on the same was claimed at Rs.6,60,095/-. As it was not used for the purpose of business, depreciation was not allowable on the same. The mistake resulted in aider assessment of Rs.6,60,095/- involving tax effect of Rs. 3,14,956/-.

In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs.50,34,277/- and Rs.6,60,095/- aggregating to Rs.56,94,372/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.1 Further, reasons were recorded on 29.03.2011 as

under: -

Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.12.2006 at an income of Rs.17,84,13,464/-. As per the information received from Investigation Wing, Income Tax Department, New Delhi regarding list of Accommodation Entries, the above mentioned assessee was found to have taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- from the following parties.

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

(i) Prakash Punit Commerce & Consultant amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-

(ii) C V Metal Powders (Haryana)Ltd. amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-

(iii) Saheb Enterprises amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-

During the course of search I survey on the above parties, it has been proved that said companies/parties are involved in giving accommodation entries to various individuals/companies.

In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs.20,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 1148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.2 In response, the assessee requested to treat the original

return filed by the assessee to be the return in response to notice u/s

148 of the Act and also requested for copy of reasons recorded u/s 143

of the Act. Later on, the assessee filed the objections against reopening

which was disposed of vide interim order dated 16.11.11. The

reassessment was completed vide order dated 26.12.2011 at a total

income of Rs. 18,04,18,464/- after making a further addition of Rs. 20

lakh as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act to the income assessed

vide order dated 18.12.2006 passed us/ 143(3) in the original

assessment proceedings.

2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.

CIT (A) challenging the reopening of assessment as well as challenging

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

the addition on merits. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the

assessee and aggrieved the assessee has now approached the ITAT

and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in law as the same are based on reasons which are vague.

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

recorded for reopening of the assessment.

3.5.2010 for reopening the assessment, the assessment was reopened

on the issue that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.

50,34,277/- on account of guarantee charges as per notes to accounts

which should have been disallowed in the assessment framed u/s

143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that the reasons recorded also

mention that the assessee had claimed depreciation on residential

building amounting to Rs. 6,60,095/- against which rental income had

been shown and, therefore, the same should not have allowed to the

assessee company. The ld. AR submitted that, in response, the

assessee had clarified that the amount of guarantee charges of Rs.

50,34,277/- had not been claimed in the year under consideration i.e.

assessment year 2004-05 but had been claimed in assessment year

2003-04. Thus, no addition on this account could have been made. It

was also submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had submitted

before the Assessing Officer that depreciation of Rs. 6,60,095/- had

not been claimed by the assessee during the year and, therefore, this

proposed addition was also not tenable. Ld. AR submitted that the

Assessing Officer himself accepted these facts in Para 4.1 and 5 of the

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

reassessment order that the initiation of proceedings on these two

issues were not justified.

3.1 Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer

recorded another set of reasons on 29.03.2011 regarding

accommodation entries of Rs. 20 lakh on account of unsecured loans

and that too, without issuance of any further notice u/s 148 and

thereafter made an addition of Rs. 20 lakh alleging that the assessee

was not able to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of

the unsecured loans. Ld. AR relied on the case of the Northern Exim

Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 357 ITR 586 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court has held that validity of the assumption of

jurisdiction u/s 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons

recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not

authorised to refer to any other reason even if it can otherwise be

inferred and/or gathered from the records. Reliance was also placed

on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of

Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 382 ITR

547 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that reasons given

subsequently do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of section

147(1) of the Act inasmuch as they do not indicate that there was a

failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

necessary for the assessment.

3.2 Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Aventis Pharma Limited, Vs.

ACIT (formerly Hoechst India Ltd.) in Writ Petition No. 877 and 878 of

2006 wherein it was held that the reasons for reopening of assessment

are required to be tested/examined as recorded at the time of issuance

of notice u/s 148 of the Act and that no substitution, deletion or

addition to the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice can be

made to support the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AR

submitted that it was an undisputed fact that on the basis of reasons

recorded, the proceedings initiated u/s 148 could not stand, as both

the issues were not relevant for the year under consideration and,

therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 was itself bad in law.

3.3 It was further submitted that the reasons recorded show

that they were recorded without any application of mind as in the

reasons recorded there was an allegation of accommodation entry

amounting to Rs. 10 lakh from M/s Saheb Enterprises whereas the

assessee had received an amount of Rs. 10 lakh from M/s Maestro

Marketing & Advertising Pvt. Ltd. during the year.

3.4 Ld. AR further placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A.

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

No. 108/2005 dated 18.11.2015) and Principal CIT vs G & G Pharma

Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del) and submitted that the proceedings had been

initiated on the basis of information received from the Investigation

Wing but the order of the Assessing Officer did not reflect independent

application of mind to the information so received.

3.5 It was also submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act

issued on 3.5.2010 was beyond the period of four years from the end of

the relevant assessment year and, therefore, as per proviso to section

147 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings could not be reopened

after the expiry of four years unless income chargeable to tax had

escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to

disclose fully and truly all material facts and in the present case as all

the facts relevant to the case were already available on record. Ld. AR

submitted that in the reasons recorded (dated 29.3.11) regarding

accommodation entry of Rs. 20 lakh, there was no allegation

whatsoever that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the computation

of income.

3.6 Ld. AR also submitted that the assessment was reopened

on a notice issued u/s 148 on 3.5.2010 on two issues, first being

guarantee fee and second being depreciation. However, no addition

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

was made by the Assessing Officer on these counts and accordingly no

further addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer in

such a situation. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bombay). Ld. AR further submitted that this

view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was also followed by the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranbaxy Laboratories

Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del).

submitted that the Assessing Officer had dealt with the objections

raised by the assessee against the reopening and, therefore, the

assessee had no cause for grievance. It was also submitted that the

Assessing Officer had given adequate opportunity to the assessee and

due process had been followed. Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the

findings of the ld. CIT (A) and vehemently supported his order.

material on record. It is undisputed in this case that the reassessment

proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years and, therefore,

the proviso to Section 147 will necessarily come into play. The reasons

recorded do not record AO’s satisfaction to the effect that the assessee

had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

assessment. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the

part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

necessary for the purpose of assessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High

Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT

308 ITR 38 (Del.) has opined as under:

“In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to Section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action u/s 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 22 (Del.) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (2004) 269 ITR 192 that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-point, we hold that the notice dated March 29, 2004, u/s 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated March 2, 2005, are without jurisdiction as no action u/s 147 could be taken beyond the four year’s period in the circumstances narrated above.” 5.1 A perusal of the reasons recorded in the instant case

also shows that there is no mention or allegation that there has

been any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the

purpose of assessment. The contents of the reason fail to meet

the statutory requirement. Respectfully following the ratio of the

judgment in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

(supra), we have no alternative but to quash the reassessment

proceedings.

5.2 Further, it is also undisputed that the AO did not

make any additions on the first set of reasons recorded and chose

to record a second set of reasons during the pendency of the re-

assessment proceedings and no statutory notice u/s 148 was

issued vis-a-vis the second set of reasons. The Hon’ble Delhi High

Court, on an identical issue, has held in the case of CIT vs.

Ranbaxy Laboratories (Supra) as under:

“18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Jaganmohan Rao (supra). We may also note that the heading of Section 147 is “income escaping assessment” and that of Section 148 “issue of notice where income escaped assessment”. Section 148 is supplementary and complimentary to Section 147. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income chargeable to tax. As per explanation

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

(3) if during the course of these proceedings the Assessing Officer comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items. However, the legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under Section 148.

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

on these accounts.

5.3 The action of the AO fails on this count also and

respectfully following the ratio of the judgments as

aforementioned we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and

quash the proceedings u/s 147/148.

I.T.A. No. 2654/Del/2013 Assessment year 2004-05

allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.04.2017. Sd/- Sd/- ( N.K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 3rd April 2017 ‘GS’ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR By Order

Asstt. Registrar