9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 791 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - as argued reopening on the basis of satisfaction recorded by some other authority (i.e. third party) like Sale Tax, Mumbai - non recording of own satisfaction - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - After going through the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT we are of the view that the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the specific information is legally valid - Decided against assessee. Bogus purchases of material - Documentary evidences filed by the assessee for substantiating the claim of assessee and establishing the genuineness of purchase of packing material from the two parties which has not been falsified by the AO by making any enquiry or producing any documentary evidences contrary to the evidences filed by the assessee - DR has not filed any contrary evidences before us to falsify the claim of the assessee - Thus on the basis of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee for substantiating the claim and the genuineness of purchase packing material from two parties i.e. M/s DD Motors Corporation and M/s Amit Trading Co. are quite genuine. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment based on satisfaction recorded by a third party. 2. Justification of disallowance of expenses on account of packing materials claimed to be bogus purchases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment: The primary issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) was justified in reopening the assessment based on satisfaction recorded by another authority, specifically the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai. The assessee argued that the reopening was invalid as the DCIT did not record his own satisfaction. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the existence of information suggesting income has escaped assessment is sufficient to reopen the case. The Tribunal concluded that reopening based on specific information from the Sales Tax Department was legally valid and dismissed the assessee's legal challenge on this ground. 2. Justification of Disallowance of Expenses on Account of Packing Materials: The second issue was whether the DCIT was justified in disallowing expenses claimed for packing materials, which were alleged to be bogus. The assessee contended that they had provided all necessary documentary evidence, including purchase bills, bank statements, and confirmations from the suppliers (M/s Amit Trading Co. and M/s D.D. Corporation). The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct any independent enquiry to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Citing various judgments, including CIT vs Fair Finvest Ltd and CIT vs Goel Sons Golden Estate P Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that if the assessee provides credible evidence, the onus is on the AO to conduct proper enquiries. Since the AO failed to do so, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal also highlighted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals without adequately considering the documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine and the disallowance of expenses was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO for all assessment years under consideration. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment based on third-party information but found the disallowance of expenses for packing materials to be unjustified due to the lack of independent enquiry by the AO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of expenses and deleted the additions made by the AO for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The decision was pronounced on 07.10.2020.
|
