9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Puneet Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel. MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The assessee questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3642(Del)/2011 dated 31.10.2011, whereby the Revenue s appeal against the order of CIT (A), setting-aside the reassessment on the ground that the jurisdiction under Section 148 was improperly assumed, has been challenged. 2. Learned counsel urges that a facial reading of the satisfaction recorded by the authority under Section 148 shows that it was flawed and that there is complete non-application of mind. It was submitted that very evidently, the concerned officer did not take into consideration the returns which had been previousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 68 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessing officer had not conducted independent enquiries after receipt of information. However, he has analyzed the report received from Investigation Wing to come to a conclusion that transactions were not genuine. The reasons recorded in the case of the present assessee are exhaustive as against the scanty reasons recorded in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. (supra). This is not the case in the present appeal. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessing officer had applied his mind while recording the reasons for re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Moreover, the information is specific giving the details of the branch, the name of the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Lal (supra) it is clear that sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief cannot be judged by the Court. From the reasons recorded, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pointed out as to why the belief formed by the assessing officer was not bonafide or was based on vague, irrelevant and nonspecific information. As mentioned above, a specific information was received by the assessing officer through the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax that the assessee had received amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from three persons through bank accounts. Under the law, there is no requirement that the assessing officer should verify the information before forming the belief that income had in fact escaped assessment and only then he can resort to proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
