9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Assessment of income and the setting aside of the assessment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148: The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not possess relevant material to initiate action under this section. The counsel for the assessee contended that the reasons recorded by the AO were based merely on suspicion and pretence, without any material evidence to suggest that income had escaped assessment. The case of Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which was the basis for initiating proceedings under section 148, pertained to a different assessment year (1996-97) and not the relevant year under appeal (1993-94). Moreover, Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. did not exist in the relevant year, and there was no connection between it and the assessee. The reference to sections 147 and 148 was made, emphasizing that any escapement should relate to positive income, and since the assessee had not commenced any business, there was no scope for income to escape assessment. The counsel also highlighted that section 68 of the Act uses the word "May," giving the AO discretion to tax cash credits only if they are not genuine or if the identity is not established. The AO lacked material to conclude that the cash credits were not genuine. Conversely, the Revenue argued that the reasons for issuing the notice were recorded and placed in the assessee's Paper Book before the notice was issued. The AO observed that the share application and unsecured loans introduced by the assessee were not genuine, leading to a belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO obtained necessary permission under section 151(2) before issuing the notice. The Revenue contended that the sufficiency of reasons could not be challenged, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Sophia Finance Ltd., which authorized the AO to bring share capital as deposits to tax under section 68. The Tribunal found that the AO did not have any material or information regarding the parties involved before recording the reasons. The AO's suspicion was based on an analogy drawn from the case of Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., without any direct connection or material linking the assessee to Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons recorded were not in good faith and lacked prima facie satisfaction, as required for issuing a notice under section 148. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 was deemed invalid, and the assessment made was annulled. 2. Assessment of Income and Setting Aside of the Assessment: The Revenue challenged the setting aside of the assessment, while the assessee contended that the AO did not have any relevant material to initiate action under section 148. The Tribunal observed that the assessee-company was incorporated on 20-10-1992 and filed its first return of income for the assessment year 1994-95. For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee did not file any return of income, and the balance sheet showed share application money and unsecured loans received. The AO drew an analogy from the case of Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., where share application money and unsecured loans were held as unexplained and taxed under section 68. However, the Tribunal found that the AO did not bring any material on record to connect the assessee with Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. or to prove that the deposits or shareholders were not genuine. The AO's suspicion alone could not give rise to a positive belief necessary for issuing a notice under section 148. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's belief of income escapement was based on suspicion rather than material evidence. The AO did not have any prima facie belief or material to conclude that the cash credits were not genuine. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid, leading to the annulment of the assessment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
|
