9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 20 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reasons to believe - HELD THAT - We find that the reasons for reopening are same for the A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11. No doubt, each Assessment Year is to be seen differently, but the note from the Investigation unit indicate the same pattern of expenditure claimed over a period of 5 years. Two of these years were dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court and hence the same ratio applies to the year before us also. The SLP filed by the revenue has been summarily dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 in the case of the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of reopening proceedings for AY 2008-09 based on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Validity of quashing the reopening proceedings for AY 2008-09 by the CIT(A) based on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Reopening Proceedings for AY 2008-09: The revenue questioned whether the CIT(A) was justified in not sustaining the reopening proceedings for AY 2008-09 based on the Delhi High Court's order for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, despite different circumstances and facts for AY 2008-09. The case was reopened based on a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) and a detailed report from the Investigation Wing, which alleged that the assessee made collections from its principal and issued account payee cheques to various sub-contractors (allegedly bogus entities). The cheques were then cashed, and the money was distributed as bribes. The AO disallowed ?1,60,94,500/- on account of subcontracting expenses, which was 88% of the consultancy income received by the assessee, allowing only 12% of the receipts. 2. Validity of Quashing the Reopening Proceedings for AY 2008-09: The CIT(A) quashed the reopening proceedings based on the Delhi High Court's orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court had ruled that information relating to one assessment year was not relevant for another assessment year. The High Court found that the reasons for reopening were the same for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, and AY 2010-11. The High Court had previously determined that there was no tangible, specific material to justify the reassessment notice, as the AO had already conducted inquiries during the original assessments and found no evidence that the entities to whom payments were made were fictitious. TDS amounts were deducted, and there was no fresh evidence supporting the reassessment. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening were consistent across the assessment years and that the pattern of expenditure claimed over five years was similar. The Supreme Court had summarily dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order quashing the notice issued under Section 148 for the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reopening proceedings for AY 2008-09, aligning with the Delhi High Court's orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the revenue's SLP. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
|
