Facts of the Case
The assessee, Vedanta Resources Private Limited, filed its return of
income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 08.08.2016 declaring total income of
₹6,100. A survey under Section 133A was earlier conducted in the Saroj Group
cases, during which information surfaced that certain companies had merged with
the assessee and that alleged bogus investments aggregating to ₹12.06 crore
existed as on 31.03.2016. Based on this information received from the
Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing
notice under Section 148 on 17.03.2021. The reassessment was completed under
Section 147 on 31.03.2022 by making an addition of ₹12,03,48,105 as unexplained
cash credit. The CIT(A) confirmed the reopening, against which the assessee
filed a cross-objection before the Tribunal.
Issues Involved
Whether reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 was valid when
the reasons recorded were vague and based solely on investigation wing
information, whether the reopening amounted to borrowed satisfaction without
application of independent mind, and whether the reassessment order was barred
by limitation as it was dispatched beyond the statutory time limit.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Revenue contended that reopening was validly initiated on the basis
of credible information received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus
investments and that the assessment order was passed within the prescribed
limitation period.
Respondent’s Arguments
The assessee contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing
Officer were cryptic, vague, and merely reproduced the investigation report
without demonstrating any live link between the material and formation of
belief. It was argued that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is invalid
in law. The assessee further submitted that although the assessment order bore
the date 31.03.2022, it was dispatched only on 02.04.2022 and served
thereafter, rendering it barred by limitation as the order had not left the
control of the Assessing Officer within the statutory period.
Court Order / Findings
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer
were vague and lacked independent application of mind, constituting a clear
case of borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer
failed to demonstrate a live nexus between the information received and the
belief that income had escaped assessment. Relying on the decisions of the
Delhi High Court in Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in
Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the reopening was
invalid in law. The Tribunal further held that an assessment order is deemed to
be passed only when it leaves the control of the Assessing Officer. Since the
order dated 31.03.2022 was dispatched on 02.04.2022, beyond the limitation period,
the reassessment was also barred by limitation.
Important Clarification
The Tribunal clarified that reopening of assessment requires independent
satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on tangible material and cannot be
sustained on mere reproduction of investigation wing reports. It was further
clarified that for compliance with limitation provisions, an assessment order
must be dispatched and leave the control of the Assessing Officer within the
statutory time limit; mere signing or dating of the order is insufficient.
Final Outcome
The cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and the
reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 along with the
assessment order passed for Assessment Year 2016-17 were quashed as being
without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The appeal filed by the Revenue
was dismissed.
Source Link-
https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1768298000-nzcwSr-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This
content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only.
Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It
is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The
author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this
content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment