9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1513 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Reopening of assessment - as alleged reasons were recorded after issue of the notice - HELD THAT - Conclusions as drawn by the assessee merely on basis of presumptions and there is no evidence on record, which could support his view that reasons were not recorded on 12/03/2014. Firstly, not mentioning date on the reasons recorded in itself is not sufficient to establish that same was recorded after 12/03/2014. Secondly, it is very much possible that after going through the audit report on date of its filing, the Assessing Officer gone through the said report and recorded the reasons to believe. Thirdly, no evidence duly certified from the authorities are produced before us which could establish that reasons were recorded on 10/03/2014. Merely on the presumption of the assessee, it cannot be held that reasons were recorded after 12/03/2014. Accordingly we reject the contention of the Ld. counsel of the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Validity of assessment order passed - whether the return of income filed on 12/08/2014 can be considered as a valid return of income and an assessment made on the basis of said return of income can be considered as valid and legal assessment? - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee is claiming that return of income filed by the assessee on 11/08/2014 is not valid because it was filed too late after the period of 10 days as specified in notice dated 12/03/2014 issued under section 148 of the Act, and therefore assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act is invalid. In our opinion, the understanding of the assessee is based on the presumption that return filed by the assessee has been held to be invalid by the Assessing Officer. But from the record, no such action taken by the AO. On the other hand, AO has taken cognizance of the return of income filed by the assessee on 11/08/2014 though with a delay and thereafter issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 12/08/2014 and therefore in our opinion the Assessing Officer has validly completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue in dispute. The ground No. 2, of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued after filing of the return of income and therefore assessment completed is void ab initio - As notice u/s 143(2) has been issued after filing return of income and therefore the decisions relied upon by the assessee are of no assistance because in those decisions either no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued and served or same has been issued or served prior to filing of return of income and therefore facts of those cases are distinguishable. As find that in this case on 11/08/2014, the assessee has only submitted a letter that original return of income filed by the assessee might be treated as return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The said original return of income was already available with the AO, and therefore it does not take much time in going through the said return and thereafter issue notice u/s 143(2) - contention of the assessee that even notice issued u/s143(2) on the day of filing of return of income is also invalidate the assessment, is rejected. In view of the above discussion, the ground No. 3 of the appeal is also dismissed. Denial of principle of natural justice - documents in relation to bogus purchases were impounded by the investigation wing of the Income-tax Department not returned back - From the paperbook filed by the assessee, we find that assessee has filed copy of ledger account in respect of the all alleged bogus purchase parties, copy of stock registers, bank statements etc. and therefore it is evident that same are available with the assessee. In the paperbook, the assessee has also certified that same were produced before the lower authorities therefore contention of the assessee that same were not available with him is ill founded. Further, we find that on the issue of the merit of the addition is concerned, the Tribunal in order dated 20.12.2019 has already allowed relief to the assessee and deleted the addition and therefore in our opinion this issue is rendered only an academic and infructuous. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating upon.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of jurisdiction for assessment under Section 147. 2. Validity of the return of income on which assessment was made. 3. Validity of the assessment order due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). 4. Alleged violation of natural justice. 5. Confirmation of invoking Section 69 of the IT Act. 6. Confirmation of addition to the total income and ignoring documentary evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Jurisdiction for Assessment under Section 147: The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment under Section 147 on two grounds: lack of credible information and improper recording of reasons after issuing notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) based the reopening on an enquiry report from the DGIT (Investigation), which was considered a credible source. The AO was not required to conduct further inquiries before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had a reasonable belief based on the investigation report, and the reopening was valid. 2. Validity of the Return of Income on Which Assessment Was Made: The assessee contended that the return filed on 12/08/2014 was invalid as it was filed beyond the time prescribed in the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the AO accepted the return despite the delay and issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 12/08/2014, which was subsequent to the filing of the return. The Tribunal held that the AO validly completed the assessment under Section 143(3), and the return was considered valid for assessment purposes. 3. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Lack of Notice Under Section 143(2): The assessee argued that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after filing the return, making the assessment void. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 143(2) was served on 12/08/2014, after the return was filed on 11/08/2014. The Tribunal dismissed the contention that the notice's date (14/07/2014) invalidated the assessment, considering it a typographical error covered under Section 292B. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order. 4. Alleged Violation of Natural Justice: The assessee claimed that the assessment was completed in violation of natural justice as documents related to bogus purchases were not returned by the investigation wing. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced copies of relevant documents before the lower authorities, indicating they were available with the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue of merit of the addition was already decided in favor of the assessee, rendering this issue academic and infructuous. 5. Confirmation of Invoking Section 69 of the IT Act: The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided judgment excerpt. However, it is implied that the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions on merit would affect the confirmation of invoking Section 69. 6. Confirmation of Addition to the Total Income and Ignoring Documentary Evidence: The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's appeal on the merits of the addition, deleting the additions based on the theory of peak credit and finding the AO's conclusions unsustainable in law. The Tribunal reiterated that the addition was based on surmises and conjectures, and the AO failed to issue notices to alleged bogus suppliers or find corroborative material during the survey. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals regarding the validity of jurisdiction, the validity of the return of income, and the validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, and the issue of confirming the addition was already decided in favor of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed to the extent of the grounds recalled.
|
