9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings, without appreciating the fact and law that the assessee's case is fully covered under section 147 of the Act and not the proviso to Section 147 of the Act since as per the provision of section 147 of the Act, only condition required to be fulfilled for reopening within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is that the A.O. must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax escaped assessment?" 2. We have heard Mr.Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The short facts are that, for the assessment year 2004-2005, AO reopened the assessment already made in purported exercise of the power under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd furnished along with Income Tax Return filed. It appears that on scrutiny of the accounts, AO had issued the said questionnaire dated 10.11.2006 and inquired about the payments made to subcontractors. That notice was complied with and a list was furnished. At this point of time, during the argument, learned DR has contested that the assessee had defaulted in not furnishing the names and addresses of the subcontractors and the AO was prevented to know the correct facts. According to learned DR, it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee not to disclose the full facts. However, we are not in agreement with the said argument of learned DR. As we have noted, the basic information was very much available with the AO. The onus was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat to verify the identity of subcontractors and genuineness of the work, examination is required. It was not the reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment but he has reason to believe that an examination is required. There should be a definite reason so as to form a belief that some income had escaped assessment. Then only reopening is permissible. We, therefore, hold, after perusing the reasons recorded for reopening, that the same was presumptive in nature and proceeded merely to further investigate the case on the point on which an inquiry had already conducted by the AO during the course of original assessment order. Such an action of reopening cannot be approved, hence, we hereby confirm the finding of learned CIT(A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter, the said ground can be answered. CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, both, after perusing the record, has found that there was no justification for reopening of the assessment and consequently, has quashed all subsequent proceedings. 7. As such, if the record is to be considered and the conclusion is to be arrived at for justification, it would be a finding of fact, but even otherwise also, as referred to by the Tribunal, the issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (supra). 8. Under the circumstances, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the present appeal as canvassed. 9. Hence, the appeal is meritless. Therefore, dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
