Reopening u/s 147 Invalid as AO Acted Solely on Investigation Wing’s Info: ITAT Amritsar

Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Amritsar bench today allowed an appeal filed by Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd., quashing a reassessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessment without independent application of mind, relying solely on information from the Investigation Wing, and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Case Background

Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. originally filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on September 30, 2008, declaring an income of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. Following a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the assessee’s group on January 22, 2009, a return in response to a notice under Section 153C of the Act was filed on February 6, 2010, declaring the same income. The assessment was completed under Section 153C on December 29, 2010, at an income of Rs. 4,64,33,441/-, which included a minor disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/-, later reduced to Rs. 30,000/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

Subsequently, on October 3, 2013, the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, conducted a search operation on the Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group, and Dharmichand Jain Group in Mumbai. Based on certain evidence gathered during this search, the case of Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee.

In response, the assessee filed a return on April 24, 2015, reiterating its original income. However, the AO completed the reassessment at an income of Rs. 4,95,13,441/-, making an addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- on account of an alleged bogus unsecured loan from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., along with the earlier confirmed disallowance of Rs. 30,000/-.

Assessee’s Challenge and Arguments

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. appealed to the CIT(A), challenging the AO’s jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The assessee argued that there was no “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment and no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The company emphasized that the original assessment under Section 153C was a detailed scrutiny, and the unsecured loan from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was disclosed in the balance sheet under “sundries” and clearly mentioned in the Tax Audit Report.

The assessee contended that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were based merely on information from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind. It was highlighted that while Sanjay Choudhary’s statement mentioned bogus entries by certain entities, it did not specifically name M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. as providing bogus loans or the assessee as availing such loans.

Furthermore, the assessee argued that the reopening was beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, requiring a failure to disclose material facts, which it asserted was not the case. A critical procedural lapse highlighted was the AO’s reliance on Sanjay Choudhary’s statement without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, despite requests. This, the assessee argued, violated principles of natural justice. The assessee also pointed out that the copy of Sanjay Choudhary’s statement provided by the AO was incomplete.

Judicial Precedents Cited by Assessee

The assessee cited several judicial precedents to support its arguments against the validity of the reassessment:

• Sheo Nath Singh vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (SC) 82 ITR 0147: This Supreme Court case emphasized that the Assessing Officer must set out reasons for believing that income escaped assessment, not just rely on external communications. The AO must apply his mind independently.
  • CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi): The Delhi High Court held that reopening merely on the directions of superior officers or information from the investigation wing, without the AO independently applying his mind to form a belief of escaped income, is invalid.
• ITO Vs Narnaudia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4094/Del/2009, ITAT Delhi: This ITAT decision reiterated that reopening based solely on investigation wing information, without independent application of mind, is not valid.
• Other cases cited included Shri Chunnilal Prajapati Vs Income-tax Officer-II, ITA Nos. 290 to 293/Luc/2010, ITAT Lucknow, and various others related to the genuineness of transactions and the right to cross-examination, such as Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 0713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 127 DTR 241.

CIT(A)’s Affirmation

The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had reopened the assessment because the Sanjay Choudhary Group was allegedly involved in providing accommodation entries for bogus unsecured loans, and M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., a group company, had provided such an entry of Rs. 31,50,000/- to the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the amount was shown under “sundries” as a current liability rather than “unsecured loans,” suggesting a lack of full and true disclosure by the assessee. Despite acknowledging that the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of Sanjay Choudhary, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

ITAT’s Findings and Decision

The ITAT, after hearing both parties, found that the original assessment under Section 153C was a “deep scrutiny.” The Tribunal noted that the details of the loan from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. were available in the Tax Audit Report furnished with the original return, indicating that the facts were not concealed and were accessible to the AO during the initial assessment.

Crucially, the ITAT scrutinized the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons primarily cited the search on the Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sanjay Choudhary’s alleged admission that M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. provided “accommodation entries” in the nature of bogus loans. The AO stated that based on “this information in my possession,” he had reasons to believe that the assessee concealed facts.

The Tribunal strongly criticized the AO’s approach, stating that he “simply acted upon the information received from the Investigation Wing and did not apply his own mind.” Referring to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Delhi High Court) judgment, the ITAT reiterated that a fundamental requirement for reopening an assessment is the AO’s independent application of mind to the material to form a genuine belief that income has escaped assessment. The Delhi High Court in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 similarly held that “reasons to believe” must be genuine and discernible from available material, not based on vague or non-specific information, and the AO must apply his own mind to the information.

The ITAT concluded that the AO’s action of reopening the assessment solely based on information from the Investigation Wing, without conducting independent inquiries or applying his own mind, was invalid. The failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine Sanjay Choudhary, whose statement formed the basis of the addition, further vitiated the proceedings as it violated principles of natural justice.

For these reasons, the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed by the AO.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-I, Jalandhar.

2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

“1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the contention of the Assessing Officer in reopening the case u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and, thus, framing of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3)/153C at an income of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- against the returned income of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that there was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped and there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and our objections as filed before the Assessing Officer have not been considered properly.

4. Notwithstanding the above said facts, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer on account of so called bogus unsecured loan in the name of M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., specially, when the confirmation from the said party had been furnished.

5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering that the reliance by the Assessing Officer on the statement of Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary at the back of assessee was not proper without giving any opportunity for cross examination and which is against the principles of natural justice.

6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering and confirming the contention of the Assessing Officer in not acceding the assessee’s request to summon Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary u/s 131 and, as such, no addition could be made without acceding to the request of the assessee.

7. That the Worthy CIT (A) in para 16 having agreed that the Assessing Officer did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary and still confirmed the addition, which is against the principles of natural justice as held in the case of M/s Andeman Timber Industries as reported 127 DTR 141 in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram as reported in 125 ITR 713.

8. That the addition as made by the Assessing Officer has been withheld/confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) against the facts and circumstances of the case and submission filed during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and during the course of Appellate proceedings have not been considered properly.

9. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

3. Vide ground nos. 1 to 3, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the AO in reopening the case u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring an income of Rs.4,63,33,441/-. Thereafter, a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on assesse’s group on 22.01.2009. In response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income declaring the same income of Rs.4,63,33,441/- on 06.02.2010. The AO completed the assessment u/s 153C of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2010 at an income of Rs.4,64,33,441/-. Subsequently, a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by Directorate of Income Tax(Investigation), Mumbai on 03.10.2013 at Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain Group of Mumbai. In view of certain evidences gathered during the search, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to which, the assessee filed the return of income on 24.04.2015 declaring an income of Rs.4,63,33,441/-. The AO, however, completed the assessment at an income of Rs.4,95,13,441/- by making the addition of Rs.31,50,000/- on account of loan received from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.30,000/- on account of disallowance which was earlier made u/s 153C of the Act at Rs.1,00,000/- but was restricted by the ld. CIT(A) to Rs.30,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the jurisdiction of the AO in reopening the assessment by stating that there was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. It was also stated that the objections were filed before the AO which had not been considered properly and that the addition made by the AO on account of loan in the name of M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was not called for especially when the confirmation from the said party had been furnished and that the statement of Sh. Sanjay Choudhary was recorded at the back of assessee by the AO without giving any opportunity of cross examination. Therefore, the addition made was against the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted as under:

“(i) The Ld. AO has applied his mind while framing the original assessment order u/s 153C and no discrepancy with regard to the unsecured loan was noticed.

(ii) Reasons recorded by the Ld. AO is merely based on the information received from the investigation wing of the department without any independent application of mind.

(iii) In the statement of Sanjay Chaudhary, he has only discussed the bogus entries given by M/s Vardhman Jewels, M/s Ganesh Oiam and Timil Enterprises and not Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd.

(iv) Sanjay Chaudhary has also never specifically pointed out the name of the assessee with regard to the bogus entries.

(v) The conditions laid down in first proviso to section 147 is not satisfied with regard to reopening the case beyond 4 years.

Now, the point wise explanation of the above points are provided as under:

1.4 It is submitted that the case of the assessee has already been assessed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act and the then Ld. AO has applied his mind while framing his assessment order and the said figure of the unsecured loan was not left unnoticed by the then AO since it firstly appears in the Balance Sheet’ under the head ‘Sundries’, and secondly there is a clear mention of the same in the Tax Audit Report of the assessee. Thus, the statement made by the Ld. AO that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for completion of the assessment does not hold any basis.

1.5 Thus, it is clear that the Ld. AO has not actually applied his mind while issuing notice u/s 147 and the same is also evident from the reasons recorded by the Ld.AO, which are given in Point 2 of the re-assessment order. Herein the Ld. AO has merely discussed the search carried on the Sanjay Chaudhary Group and alleged that Sanjay Chaudhary himself has admitted that his concern NIPL is providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus loans when neither there is any mention of NIPL giving the bogus unsecured loan entries nor there was any mention of the assessee availing bogus loan. Thus, the ‘reasons to believe’ are only the misguided contention of the Ld.AO which were concluded without applying any mind and hastily serving of the notice near the time barred dates. It may be mentioned here that the AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on 23.03.2015 and the said action would have been time barred by 31.03.2015.

1.6 Moreover , Sanjay Chaudhary Group had many concerns under it and it is not necessary that every entry provided by every concern under it is bogus as no investigation with respect to the same has ever been carried out either by the investigation wing or the income tax department itself. Moreover, the concerned person has never pointed out the name of the assessee while being investigated by the department, thus, it is merely a rough assumption to state that if the name of the assessee is appearing in the books of NIPL then, the entry provided by the NIPL is bogus when no claim has been made by the concerned person in his statement. It is also submitted that in the course of the re-assessment proceedings the assessee has even requested the copy of the statement of Sanjay Chaudhary recorded by the Investigation wing vide letter dated 05.05.2015 which is received by the assessee and the copy of the same is enclosed in the Paper book. However, it is to be noted here that the said copy is incomplete and incoherent as it lacks some of the important pages of the statement, thus, from the same it is very much clear that the Ld. AO himself never had the full statement in his possession which again goes on to prove that it was impossible for the Ld, AO to process the relevant data as the data available with himself is misplaced.

1.7 The impetuous nature of service of notice u/s 148 and order u/s 147 is also clear from the fact that the assessee was never allowed to cross examine Sanjay Chaudhary even when the assessee had asked the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings to do the same. Thus, the case of the assessee has been reopened merely on the basis of the information received from the Investigation wing and no independent application of mind has been made by the Ld. AO because the Ld. AO on one hand is alleging that the information were concealed by the assessee at the time of the original assessment proceedings and on the other hand he is admitting that the information was “prima facie put under the head ‘Sundries’ in the current liabilities” and the same had a clear mention in the Tax Audit Report. Thus, from the same it is clear that the Ld. AO have only relied on the information of the investigation wing and have neither looked into the facts and circumstances of the case or even on the documents filed in the reassessment proceedings. Thus, reopening without application of mind is invalid and wrong. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments:-

• • SHEO NATH SINGH vs. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SC) 82 ITR 0147-There also, the report submitted by the officer to the CIT and the latter’s orders thereon were produced. In his report, the ITO referred to some communications received by him from the CIT, Bihar and Orissa, from which it appeared that certain creditors of the assessee were mere name-lenders and the loan transactions were bogus and, therefore, proper investigation regarding the loans was necessary. It was observed that the ITO had not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case for issuing a notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961.
  • CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) – Reassessment – Reason to believe – Reopening on directions of superior officers so called reasons recorded by the AO for reopening assessee’s assessment comprises mere information received from Dy. Director of IT(Inv.) followed by directions of the very same officer and the Addl. CIT to initiate proceedings under s. 147 – These cannot be the reasons for proceeding under s. 147/148 – From the so-called reasons it is not at all discernible as to whether the AO has applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief on the basis of the material before him that income had escaped assessment – Proceedings under s. 147/148 rightly quashed by Tribunal – No substantial question of law arises for consideration.

• • ITO Vs Narnaudia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4094/Del/2009, ITAT Delhi- The reopening was done merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing. As per ratio emanating from above said Jurisdictional High Court decision, on the facts and circumstances o the case reopening is not valid. Hence we hold that the reopening was not valid.
  • Shri Chunnilal Prajapati Vs Income-tax Officer-II, ITA Nos. 290 to 293/Luc/2010, ITAT Lucknow.”

6. It was also stated that the assessment framed beyond four years was barred by limitation. On merit, it was stated that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor alongwith genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:

> CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.)

> ITO Vs Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ (Pune) TM 300

> Paul Mathews and Sons Vs CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)

> CIT Vs Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras)

> Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 0713 (SC)

> Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 127 DTR 241

> Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhailal Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 562 & 591/A hd.2015

7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the AO noted during the course of search on Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary Group that the said group was engaged in providing accommodation entries to different assessees for bogus unsecured loans and bogus purchases. Such an entry was also provided to the assessee by M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of its group companies of Rs.31,50,000/-. On that basis, the AO reopened the assessment. He further observed that the amount received from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was not shown under ‘unsecured loans’ in the balance sheet by the assessee but it was shown under the head “sundries” as a current liability, which clearly shows that it was not the intention of the assessee to fully and truly disclosed in its balance sheet, the so-called unsecured loans taken from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. He accordingly confirmed the addition made by the AO.

8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that earlier income of the assessee was assessed u/s 153C of the Act after a detailed scrutiny and an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was made which was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) to Rs.30,000/- (a reference was made to page nos. 37 to 39 of the assessee’s compilation). It was further submitted that the reopening was done beyond four years but there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary for the assessment. It was contended that a loan of Rs.31,50,000/-from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was received through Sh. Ashok Kumar Malhotra, MD of the said company who had good relation with the assessee, through banking channels and it was repaid back in the next year through normal banking channels. This fact was disclosed in the Tax Audit Repot furnished alongwith the original return of income (a reference was made to page no. 18 of the assessee’s compilation). It was further submitted that the AO made the scrutiny during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and the said amount was reflected in the balance sheet under the head “sundries” alongwith other figures which clearly proved that it was part and partial of the record of the department. It was further submitted that there was no search in the case of the assessee rather there was a survey operation and the statement of Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary recorded at the back of the assessee was never confronted to the assessee. Therefore, the reopening done by the AO only on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Income Tax without making an inquiry was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:

> Sheo Nath Singh Vs ACIT 82 ITR 0147 (SC)

> CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.)

> Pr. CIT Vs G. G. Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)

> Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.)

> ITO Vs Narnaudia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4094/Del/2009

> Sh. Chunnilal Prajapati Vs ITO-II in ITA Nos.290 to 295/Luc/2010

> G. N. Shaw (Wine) (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 260 ITR 513 (Cal.)

> Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT 381 ITR 387 (Del.)

> Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA NO. 1819/Mum/2012

> Ashok Kumar Vs ACIT in ITA No. 825/Chd./2007

> Alfa Radiological Centre P. Ltd. Vs ITO 44 ITR 184 (Chd. Trib.)

9. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was an entry provider, therefore, the entry taken by the assessee was a bogus entry and the assessment was rightly reopened by the AO.

10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the original assessment of the assessee was framed u/s 153C of the Act after making the deep scrutiny. In the original return, the assessee furnished the particulars of the loan received from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. in the Tax Audit Report which is evident from page no. 18 of the assessee’s paper book wherein the details of the loans or deposits received from various persons have been mentioned, so it cannot be said that the facts relating to the receipt of loan from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was not available to the AO who made the assessment after making proper scrutiny. In the present case, the AO reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:

“The assessee had filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 at returned income of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the assessee’s group on 22.01.2009. In response to notice u/s 153C, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,63,33,441/- on 06.02.2010. Assessment was completed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 29.12.2010 at an assessed income of Rs. 4,64,33,441/-. –

2. A search operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), 3rd Floor, Scindia House Ballard Estate, Mumbai on 03.10.2013 at Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain Group of Mumbai.

3. During the course of search operation, on the Sanjay Choudhary Group, it emerged that the group is engaged in providing accommodation entries to different assessees in the nature of bogus unsecured loans and bogus purchases. In his statement recorded on oath, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary has admitted that his concern M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., bearing PAN AACCN3603R is providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus loans.

4. M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., bearing PAN AACCN3603R has provided accommodation entry to M/s. Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) bearing PAN AAACH6111J of Rs. 31,50,000/- under the nature of loan during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. This has been established in the course of the post search investigation of the seized books of accounts of the Sanjay Choudhary Group, in which M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. is one of the concern.

5. In view of this information in my possession, I have reasons to believe that the assessee M/s Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. has concealed the fact regarding the amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- received from M/s Nazar Irnpex Pvt. Ltd. and has thereby not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant assessment year. The assessment folder has been examined and this entry has not been reflected.

In view of the discussion above, I have reasons to believe that income of Rs.31,50,000/- has escaped assessment with the meaning of section 147 of the income tax Act 1961 for the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09.”

11. From the above reasons recorded, it is clear that the reopening was done on this basis that a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by the Directorate of Income Tax(Investigation), Mumbai on 03.10.2013 at Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain Group of Mumbai, only on the basis of the above information, this case was reopened which is evident from para 5 of the aforesaid reasons recorded wherein the AO had clearly stated that the said information was in his possession and on that basis he had reasons to believe that the assessee had concealed the fact regarding the amount of Rs.31,50,000/- received from M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. However, the said amount was considered as genuine earlier when the assessment was framed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act. Now question arises as to whether, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, the completed assessment can be reopened.

12. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (supra) held as under:

“The basic requirement of law for reopening an assessment is application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to reopening the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not make an inherently defective reassessment order valid.”

It has further been held as under:

“Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for him to have simply concluded that it was evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries. The basic jurisdictional requirement was application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material produced before issuing the notice for reassessment. Without analysing and forming a prima facie opinion on the basis of material produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.”

13. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (supra) held as under:

“Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have “reason to believe” that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the “reasons to believe” are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. Sufficiency of reasons is not a matter, which is to be decided by the writ court, but existence on belief is the subject-matter of the scrutiny. A notice under section 148 can be quashed if the “belief” is not bonafide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non­specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer, when he recorded the reason. There should be a link between the reasons and the evidence/material available with the Assessing Officer. The “reasons to believe” would mean cause or justification of the Assessing Officer to believe that the income has escaped assessment and not that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or reached a conclusion, as is determined and decided in the assessment order, which is the final stage before the Assessing Officer.

It has further been held that:

“the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs during financial year 2002-03 as stated in the annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. There was no dispute that the company, S, had a paid-up capital of Rs. 90 lakhs and was incorporated on January 4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to be quashed.”

14. In the present case also, the AO simply acted upon the information received from the Investigation Wing and did not apply his own mind. Therefore, the reopening u/s 147 by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing was not valid. Accordingly, the reassessment framed by the AO is quashed.

15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Court on 15/01/2019