2017 (9) TMI 1035 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - Held that - When fresh material was unearthed by the department through the investigation wing who had inquired into the transactions of M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation neither the question of change of opinion nor the concept of full disclosure may have a bearing. If the purchases of the assessee from M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation were bogus, sales and the entries were in the nature of accommodation entries, merely because the assessee disclosed such entries in the return filed and also showed such purchases in the books of accounts would hardly be sufficient to advance the arguments of full and true disclosure. The question of sufficiency of material available with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment must be seen in light of limited jurisdiction, review and the self restraint imposed by the courts at the threshold stage. In a writ petition, the court would be primarily concerned with the question whether the Assessing Officer had information enabling him to form a bonafide belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court would not evaluate the evidence at that stage nor is the Assessing Officer expected to demonstrate with certainty that the addition will certainly be sustained in the reassessment proceedings. What is required at this stage to enable the Assessing Officer to issue the notice for reopening the assessment is the tangible material on record upon consideration of which he can form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Such belief has to be one which is formed bona fide upon perusal of the materials at his command and unless it can be stated that the formation of the belief is perverse in the sense no reasonable person could on the available material on record form such a belief, the court would not interfere with the notice for reopening. - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued beyond four years for reopening the assessment.
2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly.
3. Validity of the reasons for reopening the assessment.
4. Examination of the genuineness of purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation during original assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notice Issued Beyond Four Years:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30.03.2016 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner’s assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, arguing that it was issued beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The court noted that the original assessment was framed after scrutiny, and the reopening was based on new material that came to the department's possession after the original assessment.

2. Alleged Failure of the Assessee to Disclose All Material Facts Fully and Truly:
The petitioner argued that there was no failure on their part to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. However, the court found that the transactions with S.R. Sales Corporation were not scrutinized during the original assessment, and the new material suggested that the assessee might have concealed income. The court emphasized that the non-disclosure of dubious transactions could not be considered full and true disclosure.

3. Validity of the Reasons for Reopening the Assessment:
The petitioner contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not suggest any formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. They argued that non-response from the sellers to the inquiry notice was insufficient to form such a belief. The court, however, found that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The investigation revealed that S.R. Sales Corporation had dubious transactions, including large cash withdrawals and non-existent business premises, which justified the reopening.

4. Examination of the Genuineness of Purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation During Original Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the genuineness of the purchases was already examined during the original assessment, and no disallowance was made regarding the purchases now being questioned. The court noted that the purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation were not part of the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise. The court also observed that the new material unearthed by the investigation wing indicated that the transactions were dubious, and the assessee’s disclosure in the return and books of accounts was insufficient to argue full and true disclosure.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that at the stage of issuing the notice for reopening, the sufficiency of the material is not to be evaluated, but rather whether the Assessing Officer had information enabling a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. The court discharged the rule and made no observations affecting the pending reassessment.

← Previous Next →