2015 (12) TMI 1905 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - documents is the proforma of the reasons for the reopening which is somewhat different from the proforma in which the reasons were furnished to the Assessee with the ITO's - HELD THAT - Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment for AY 2004-05 signed by the ITO. At the bottom of the said page there is an endorsement made to the Addl. CIT, Range-6, New Delhi, which then has been signed alongside by the Addl. CIT with the date of 21st March 2011. Assessee insists that this was the document that was given to him and which was also seen by the ITAT when it passed the impugned order in the present matter. Revenue, on the other hand produced before the Court a file purportedly containing the relevant original documents. One of the documents is the proforma of the reasons for the reopening which is somewhat different from the proforma in which the reasons were furnished to the Assessee with the ITO's letter dated 27th June 2011 referred to hereinbefore. This proforma (in the file) contains an endorsement of the Additional CIT who appears to have put his signature below the following hand written words I am satisfied . However, these words are missing in the copy of the reasons furnished to the Assessee with the ITO's letter dated 27th June 2011. ITAT does not appear to have been shown the original document in the file which purportedly has the above words. The Court then required Mr. Sawhney to show from the file the original of the Annexure to the letter dated 27th June 2011 of the ITO as addressed to the Principal Officer of the Assessee. At his request, adjourned 17th December 2015.

Summary

The High Court examined conflicting documents regarding income tax assessment for AY 2004-05. The Assessee presented a letter from the ITO, while the Revenue produced a file with different information. Further investigation was requested, and the case was adjourned to December 17, 2015.