JNJ Electronics Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed five connected appeals concerning Assessment Year 2013-14 and held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of material already available with the Revenue were beyond jurisdiction. Taking Jay Ace Technologies Limited’s appeal as the lead matter because the issues were common, the Tribunal noted that assessment had earlier been completed under sections 143(3) read with 153A after search proceedings in the JP Minda Group. The Investigation Wing material and the statement of Anand Kumar Sharma dated 06.02.2014 were already available during those proceedings. Proceedings under section 263 were subsequently initiated, pursuant to which an addition of Rs.95 lakh concerning an unsecured loan from Suhana Marketing Pvt. Ltd., along with related commission, was made. That addition was later deleted by a coordinate Bench of the ITAT after holding the loan transaction genuine. Before issuing the impugned notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer had also issued notices under section 133(6) to Manish Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and Suhana Marketing Pvt. Ltd., both of which responded. Nevertheless, notice under section 148 was issued on 28.03.2021.
The Tribunal found that the Investigation Wing information dated 12.03.2020 was essentially the same old information that had formed the basis of the earlier proceedings and that nothing new had been brought on record. It further observed that approval under section 151 was granted by relying on the same old statement dated 06.02.2014, indicating mechanical approval. Following the Delhi High Court ruling in Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. P. Ltd. Vs DCIT, the Tribunal held that use of stale information amounted to a change of opinion. It therefore deleted the additions and held the reassessment proceedings to be beyond jurisdiction. Other propositions raised by the assessee were left unadjudicated. The ruling was applied mutatis mutandis to the other four connected appeals and all five appeals were allowed.
