2022 (4) TMI 1234 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus Long Term Capital Gains/Short Term Capital Lossess in penny stock scrips to the beneficiaries by manipulating stock market - reopening is proposed after expiry of 4 years - HELD THAT - It is settled law that once a query is raised, during assessment proceeding and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was subject of consideration of the A.O. while completing the assessment and it is not necessary that assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of query raised. Still, in affidavit in reply it is admitted that the A.O. had accepted particulars of transactions furnished by petitioner and the A.O. has treated the same as bonafide transactions and assessed accordingly. Even if, the Assessing Officer had no means to know that the transactions in the scrip of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited are not bonafide and even if, we assume that the Assessing Officer had committed a mistake, still, as held in Gemini Leather Stores vs The Income Tax Officer 1975 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT assessment cannot be re-opened by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as Income Tax Officer had material facts before him when he made original assessment and he can not take recourse to reopen to remedy the error.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-2014 based on alleged escapement of income due to trading in shares of a specific company.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 had escaped assessment due to trading in shares of a company. The basis for this belief was that the company was involved in providing accommodation entries, leading to unexplained income from the sale of shares.

2. Reopening was proposed after the expiry of 4 years from the relevant assessment year, triggering the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. However, for reopening to be valid, it must be shown that there was an escapement of income due to the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts required for assessment.

3. The reasons recorded for reopening did not specify the material fact that the petitioner failed to disclose. During assessment proceedings, the petitioner provided all details related to the trading in shares, including the specific company involved, in response to queries from the Assessing Officer.

4. The Assessing Officer accepted the transaction details as bona fide and assessed them accordingly. The respondent argued that the issue was not discussed in the assessment order, but it was acknowledged that the Assessing Officer treated the transactions as genuine.

5. Referring to legal precedent, the court held that if the Assessing Officer had all material facts before him during the original assessment, the assessment cannot be reopened due to the assessee's failure to fully disclose facts. Even if there was a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer, reopening the assessment to correct the error was not permissible.

6. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and issued a writ quashing the notice under Section 148, along with related orders and assessment proceedings. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.