Case Number: ITA 1523/DEL/2019
Appellant: Shriya Devi Mundhra, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO Ward 55(5), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Case Filed On: 25th February 2019
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 21st August 2019
Date of Pronouncement: 21st August 2019
The appeal filed by Shriya Devi Mundhra pertains to the assessment year 2011-12. The case involves the reopening of the assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 55(5), New Delhi. The appellant, Shriya Devi Mundhra, challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Shriya Devi Mundhra, an individual, filed her return of income on 24th September 2011, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,89,494. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, citing information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The information indicated large-scale manipulation in the market price of shares of SPLASH MEDIA, allegedly to provide tax-exempt long-term capital gains (LTCG) to the appellant.
Based on this information, the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 19th August 2016, after obtaining necessary approval under Section 151 of the Act. The case was later transferred to New Delhi in pursuance of an order dated 19th July 2017.
During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the appellant had shown income from house property, short-term capital gain, and income from other sources. The appellant also claimed an exempt long-term capital gain of Rs. 21,16,676 on the sale of shares of Splash Media & Infrastructure Ltd. (also known as Luharuka Media & Infra Ltd.). The Assessing Officer inferred that the LTCG was arranged and not genuine, referring to an investigation conducted by the Directorate of Investigation, Calcutta. Consequently, the AO brought the LTCG to tax under Section 68 of the Act and added Rs. 1,04,900 as commission for earning such bogus LTCG under Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure.
Shriya Devi Mundhra challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, the CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the additions on merit.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Shriya Devi Mundhra filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The grounds of appeal included the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the addition under Section 68 and 69C of the Act, and procedural lapses.
The ITAT heard the case and examined the rival contentions. The Tribunal observed that the approval for reopening the assessment was given mechanically without due application of mind by the approving authorities. The ITAT referred to various judicial decisions, including those of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which held that reopening of assessment based on borrowed satisfaction and mechanical approval is not sustainable in law.
The ITAT also noted that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons based on vague information without establishing a clear link between the information and the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on borrowed satisfaction of the Investigation Wing, without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
In conclusion, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the approval for reopening the assessment was given mechanically and without application of mind. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of Shriya Devi Mundhra, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 and 69C of the Act was set aside.
The decision was pronounced in the open court on 21st August 2019.
Judge: R.K. Panda, Accountant Member
This case highlights the importance of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the approving authorities when initiating reassessment proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that mechanical approval based on borrowed satisfaction is not sustainable in law.
Shriya Devi Mundhra vs. ITO Ward 55(5) – Appeal Against Reopening of Assessment for AY 2011-12
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform