Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. These appeals were directed against orders involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained investment additions and penalties. The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 311 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the reopening reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were casual and not sustainable in law, as they lacked tangible material. The estimation of the assessee's alleged investment by lower authorities for quantum addition was also found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned quantum assessments and consequential penalty proceedings were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on casual reasons without tangible material is sustainable? Whether the estimation of investment for quantum addition is valid?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 271(1)(c), 148
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, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
1. The assessee has filed four appeals 3, 4 & 5/Agr/2024 pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. & 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and ITA Nos. 4 & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12 are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, each dated 29.12.2022 passed in DIN and order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048319523(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048321433(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048320025(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2022-23/1048321571(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned in light of larger interest of justice as well as in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that the assessee has filed her instant twin quantum and penalty appeals each i.e.
& 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12, respectively against the learned lower authorities’ respective findings firstly section 148/147 proceedings claiming unexplained investments addition etc. and levied section 271(1)(c) with corresponding penalties; respectively.
The Revenue side is indeed very fair at the outset in making it clear that the assessee’s instant four appeals involve identical set of facts. That being the case, we notice from a perusal of the assessee “lead” appeal that the learned Assessing Officers had recorded his reopening reasons that the assessee’s taxable income (on proximation basis) had escaped assessment. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, 2010 (2) SCC 723.