RAJDEEP MARKETING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO, WD. 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2053/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 129 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9800 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Question of law; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 194A

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 2053/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 107, 1 st Floor, Maker Chamber- V, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN : AACCR5970K Vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1) Room No. 602 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manoj Mundra Department by Ms. Indira Adakil Date of Hearing 06.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 07.11.2022 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 20.7.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee, inter alia, has challenged the validity of addition made in the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act. 2. The AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The relevant portion of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening of assessment, which depicts the details of escaped income is extracted below:- “During the year the assessee company's account was credited income u/s 194A, 194D, 194H & 194A aggregating to Rs.6,43,292/- and TDS was deducted. The nature of said incomes credited to the books of accounts of Assessee Company during the year being interest other than securities, insurance commission and brokerage and commission income. On going through the P&L A/C, it is observed that total receipts shown in the P&LA/c of Rs.5,79,039/- only and claimed credit for TDS. The assessee has under stated the receipts as reflected in the 26AS report. M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. In the case of assessee there was information received from the Pr. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Kolkata vide letter dated 30.6.2019 and conveyed that credible information was received that Mr. Sunil Shaw, M Sailesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Ramu Saha, Mr. Gautam Saha and Mr. Madhusudhan Saha maintain various current account in the name of different firms/concerns/companies. They have declared trading as business activity. There were high value cash deposits in these accounts and the proceeds were immediately withdrawn in cash from ATMs, cheque issuance, fund transfer, RTGS. The case has been investigated by DDIT (Inv.) Unit 3(1), Kolkata and the list containing the beneficiaries was also encoded, wherein assessee's name appears at Sr. No for Rs 45,00,000/- transaction with SKYLARK LOGISTICS AGENCIES PVT LTD., INDUSIND A/C-0305-JG036 050/200011924533 PERIOD-01/07/2011 TO 01/2/2016.” 3. The case of the assessee is that the AO did not make any addition for which the assessment was reopened. However, he proceeded to make addition of income, which was not mentioned in the reasons for reopening. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011)(331 ITR 236)(Bom), the Ld A.R contended that the AO was not justified in making any addition on the basis of any issue, when he has not made any addition in respect of issues for which the assessment was reopened. 4. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee had raised similar contentions before Ld CIT(A), but the same has been rejected. Accordingly, the Ld D.R placed her reliance on the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). 5. I heard the parties and perused the record. From the assessment order passed by the AO in the present reassessment proceedings, I notice that the AO has made the addition towards interest income received on income tax refund, which got adjusted against the outstanding demand for other years. From the “reasons recorded for reopening of assessment”, I notice that the AO has reopened the assessment in respect of following issues:- (a) Difference in various income between TDS certificate and books of accounts. M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 3 (b) Transaction of Rs.45.00 lakhs alleged to have been entered by the assessee with M/s Skylark Logistics Agencies P Ltd. I notice that the AO did not make any addition with regard to the above said two issues for which the assessment was reopened. However, he proceeded to make an addition in respect of an altogether new issue. 6. The question as to whether the AO is entitled to make addition on the basis of a new issue, when he has not made any addition on the issues for which the assessment was reopened, was examined by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways Ltd (supra) and it was decided in favour of the assessee as under:- “11. The rival submissions which have been urged on behalf of the revenue and the assessee can be dealt with, both as a matter of first principle, interpreting the section as it stands and on the basis of precedents on the subject. Interpreting the provision as it stands and without adding or deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the income, which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax. The words "and also" cannot be ignored. The interpretation which the Court places on the provision should not result in diluting the effect of these words or rendering any part of the language used by Parliament otiose. Parliament having used the words "assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment", the words "and also" cannot be read as being in the alternative. On the contrary, the correct interpretation would be to regard those words as being conjunctive and cumulative. It is of some significance that Parliament has not used the word "or". The Legislature did not rest content by merely using the word "and". The words "and", as well as "also" have been used together and in conjunction. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the expression "also" to mean 'further, in addition, besides, too'. The word has been treated as being relative and conjunctive. Evidently, therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) 'such income'; and also (ii) any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The words 'such income' refer to the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and in respect of which the Assessing Officer has formed M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 4 a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment. Hence, the language which has been used by Parliament is indicative of the position that the assessment or reassessment must be in respect of the income in respect of which he has formed a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment and also in respect of any other income which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of the proceedings as having escaped assessment. If the income, the escapement of which was the basis of the formation of the season to believe is not assessed or reassessed, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to independently assess only that income which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section as having escaped assessment. If upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), the Assessing Officer accepts the objections of the assessee and does not assess or reassess the income which was the basis of the notice, it would not be open to him to assess income under some other issue independently. Parliament when it enacted the provisions of section 147 with effect from 1- 4-1989 clearly stipulated that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income which he had reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which came to his notice during the proceedings. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently assess the latter. 12. In CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 1 , the Supreme Court dealt with the following question of law in the course of its judgment:— "Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee, how far in reassessment on an escaped item of income is it open to the assessee to seek a review of the concluded item for the purpose of computation of the escaped income?" The issue which arose before the Supreme Court was whether, in the course of a reassessment on an escaped item of income could an assessee seek a review in respect of an item which stood concluded in the original order of assessment. The Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of section 147, as they stood prior to the amendment on 1-4-1989. The Supreme Court held that the expression "escaped assessment" includes both "non-assessment" as well as "under assessment". Income is said to have escaped assessment within the meaning of the section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee during the relevant assessment year. The expression "assess" refers to a situation where the assessment of the assessee for a particular year is, for the first time, made by resorting to the provisions of section 147. The expression "reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by Explanation 1 to section 147. The Supreme Court adverted to the Judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 373 , which held that once an assessment is validly reopened, the previous under assessment is set aside and the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. The Court held that the object of section 147 enures to the benefit of the revenue and it is not open to the assessee to convert the reassessment proceedings as an appeal or revision and thereby seek relief in respect of M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 5 items which were rejected earlier or in respect of items not claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions of section 147 as they stood prior to the amendment on 1-4-1989. 13. The effect of the amended provisions came to be considered in two distinct lines of precedent on the subject. The first line of authority, to which a reference has already been made earlier, adopted the principle that where the Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and has issued a notice under section 148 on certain specific issues, it was not open to him during the course of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment to assess or reassess any other income, which may have escaped assessment but which did not form the subject-matter of the notice under section 148. This view was adopted in the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna's case (supra) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra). This line of authority, would now cease to reflect the correct position in law, by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. The effect of the Explanation is that once an Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and has proceeded to issue a notice under section 148, it is open to him to assess or reassess income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). 14. The second line of precedent is reflected in a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 . The Rajasthan High Court construed the words used by Parliament in section 147 particularly the words that the Assessing Officer 'may assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings' under section 147. The Rajasthan High Court held as follows : ". . . if is only when, in proceedings under section 147 the Assessing Officer, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had "reason to believe" to be so, then, only in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147. To clarify it further, or to put it in other words, in our opinion, if in the course of proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer were to come to the conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 6 continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the Assessing Officer may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147." 15. Parliament, when it enacted the Explanation (3) to section 147 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 clearly had before it both the lines of precedent on the subject. The precedent dealt with two separate questions. When it effected the amendment by bringing in Explanation 3 to section 147, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded as an interpretational error in the view which was taken by certain courts that the Assessing Officer has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by "Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna's case (supra) would, therefore, no longer hold the field. However, insofar as the second line of authority is concerned, which is reflected in the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra), Explanation 3 as inserted by Parliament would not take away the basis of that decision. The view which was taken by the Rajasthan High Court was also taken in another judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 1 . The decision in Atlas Cycle Industries' case (supra) held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, once he found that the two grounds mentioned in the notice under section 148 were incorrect or non-existent. The decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Atlas Cycle Industries' case (supra) and of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra) would not be affected by the amendment brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147.- 16.Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of an assessment or reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under section 148 setting out the reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 7 he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that section 147(1) as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income "and also" any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently during the proceedings as having escaped assessment. The words "and also" are used in a cumulative and conjunctive sense. To read these words as being in the alternative would be to rewrite the language used by Parliament. Our view has been supported by the background which led to the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147. Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation that was placed on the words "and also" by the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra). Parliament has not taken away the basis of that decision. While it is open to Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147(1) as they stood after the amendment of 1.4.1989 continue to hold the field. 18. In that view of the matter and for the reasons that we have indicated, we do not regard the decision of the Tribunal in the present case as being in error. The question of law shall, accordingly, stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. I am of the view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the above said case would apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the AO has not made any addition on the issues for which the assessment was reopened. However, he has made addition of an item, which was not stated in the reasons for reopening. Hence, under these set of facts, the AO could not have made the addition of interest income received on income tax refund as per the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (referred above). Accordingly, we direct the AO to M/s. Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 8 delete the addition so made. The order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue stands set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2022. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 07/11/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai