Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (3) TMI 974 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Challenge to notice for reopening assessment for AY 2007-08 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disclosure of material facts by the Assessee regarding advance to a company and share capital received.
3. Jurisdiction of AO to reopen assessment based on MCA database search.
4. Legal validity of the reasons for reopening assessment and objections filed by the Assessee.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2007-08. The Assessee had filed its return declaring NIL income, which was picked up for scrutiny. The AO passed an assessment order determining total income as nil. The notice for reopening was issued after four years from the end of the AY, citing issues related to loans advanced and share capital received by the Assessee.

2. Regarding the advance to a company without charging interest, the Court found that the Assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The Court held that the first reason for reopening the assessment was not valid as the Assessee had responded to specific queries in the questionnaire, satisfying the precondition of disclosing material facts.

3. The second reason for reopening, related to share capital received, was based on MCA database search indicating defunct companies. The Court emphasized that the AO must form a prima facie view based on tangible material before reopening an assessment. However, the vague reference to companies being defunct did not establish a failure on the Assessee's part to disclose material facts fully and truly.

4. The Court rejected the Revenue's plea to produce additional records to substantiate reasons for reopening. It reiterated that the validity of jurisdiction under Section 147 can only be tested based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Court concluded that the mandatory requirement of forming a prima facie view regarding non-disclosure of material facts was not met, leading to the quashing of the notice and the order rejecting objections.

Overall, the Court found that the Assessee had fulfilled the obligation to disclose material facts, rendering the reasons for reopening the assessment invalid. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice and order were quashed, disposing of the application accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates