9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be used to reopen an assessment on facts, information, documents which were before the AO or could have been easily found by him while making the assessment - there would be no finality of assessment - It will go on and on and might become a tool in the hands of the department to cause harassment to the assessee – revenue contended that the assessee refused to accept service and the envelope was returned - according to the assessee the reasons were not received by him and that the department is wrongfully trying to assess his income u/s 147 – revenue cannot reassesses the case of the assessee as the initiation of Section 147 proceedings was without jurisdiction – Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above judgment of the Supreme Court. What follows from an examination of the above Supreme Court decision is that at the time of issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the said Act, the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year. There is no requirement to append the reasons for such belief in the notice under Section 148. However, the assessee on receipt of the notice is required to file a return and if he so desired to make a request to the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons for reopening of his assessment. The assessee is entitled to counter those reasons by filing a reply. This has to be adjudicated upon by the Assessing Officer by a reasoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) as tax was not deducted at sources under section 194J. iv) Perusal of ledger A/cs of Motor car Expenses for the period 2008-2009 revealed that a sum of ₹ 26,900/- was paid in cash, which is inadmissible expenditure." The department's case is that by their letter dated 19th November, 2013 the above reasons were attempted to be served upon the petitioner. It was refused by them. This in turn is disputed by the petitioner. Now, Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner argues that on the basis of the reasons disclosed by the department in their affidavit-in-opposition, no case for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 is made out. Therefore, two alternative cases are run by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd their children were involved. Under three Deeds of trust of 1950, the relationship of the ladies and their children with the assessee were disclosed. There were further two trusts of 1957 which were not disclosed before the department. However, the deeds of 1950 conformed in all material particulars to those of 1957. His Lordship observed as follows: "Clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under which the assessments were sought to be reopened, so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, provides that if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any year, income ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be used to justify a change of view it should not be used to reopen an assessment on facts, information, documents which were before the Assessing Officer or could have been easily found by him while making the assessment. Otherwise, there would be no finality of assessment. It will go on and on and might become a tool in the hands of the department to cause harassment to the assessee. In this case, in the 143(3) proceedings all the data regarding the petitioner for the subject assessment year were before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was "escapement of income" or that the reasons for believing that there was "escapement of income" were valid for the following reasons. In the case of Amrit Feeds Ltd. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
