2019 (1) TMI 223 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - bogus share capital/share application money - sufficiency of reasons to be considered in a writ petition - communication of reasons for reopening - Held that - In the present case, the reasons recorded in the matter were certainly communicated to the petitioner. The objections of the petitioner have been properly dealt and it is not a case of mere suspicion, it is a case, wherein the competent authority was having reason to believe to reopen the assessment. There was a specific information available with the authorities. The reasons to believe had been properly understood by the authorities and there was material on the basis of which, notice was issued. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sufficiency or insufficiency for the formation of the reason to believe cannot be considered, as held in AGR INVESTMENT LTD VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER. 2011 (1) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT . It is certainly open to the assessee to participate in the reassessment proceedings and to put forth its stand in detail to satisfy the Assessing Officer that no escapement of income has taken place. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the notice as well as with the order passed by the respondents. No case for interference is made out in the matter. - deided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for reopening the assessment.
5. Jurisdictional issues related to the reopening of the assessment.
6. Timeliness of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. Allegations regarding the petitioner being a dummy company and the existence of bogus share capital.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 31.03.2018, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court examined the reasons provided for issuing the notice and found that the notice was issued based on specific information obtained from search and post-search investigations. The court noted that the sufficiency of reasons cannot be considered in a writ petition and that the petitioner must participate in the reassessment proceedings to contest the notice.

2. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2011-12 were initiated without satisfying the conditions precedent under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court reviewed the statutory provisions and found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment based on the information gathered during the search operations. The court held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was valid.

3. Adequacy of the Reasons Recorded for Reopening the Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked substance. The court examined the reasons communicated to the petitioner, which included allegations of the petitioner being a dummy company and having bogus share application money. The court found that the reasons recorded were specific and based on detailed investigations, thereby justifying the reopening of the assessment.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Reopening the Assessment:
The petitioner claimed that the recorded reasons and previous sanction from the Principal Commissioner were not communicated in a timely manner. The court noted that the reasons were eventually communicated to the petitioner, and the objections raised by the petitioner were addressed in a detailed order. The court held that the procedural requirements were met, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to respond.

5. Jurisdictional Issues Related to the Reopening of the Assessment:
The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment due to non-satisfaction of conditions under Section 147. The court reviewed the statutory provisions and found that the Assessing Officer had sufficient cause and justification to believe that income had escaped assessment. The court held that the jurisdictional requirements were satisfied.

6. Timeliness of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner argued that the notice issued on 31.03.2018 was barred by limitation, as it was served after the expiry of six years from the end of AY 2011-12. The court found that the notice was issued within the prescribed time limit, and the service of the notice on 01.04.2018 did not invalidate the proceedings. The court held that the notice was timely and valid.

7. Allegations Regarding the Petitioner Being a Dummy Company and the Existence of Bogus Share Capital:
The petitioner denied the allegations of being a dummy company and having bogus share capital. The court examined the detailed investigations conducted by the Income Tax Department, which included statements from directors and evidence of the company's lack of business activity. The court found that the allegations were substantiated by the investigations and justified the reopening of the assessment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid and in compliance with the statutory requirements. The petitioner was directed to participate in the reassessment proceedings to contest the allegations and prove that no income had escaped assessment.