9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening u/s 147 of the Act is invalid when the source of Rs. 7.6 Crores remained unidentified." 3. The respondent assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) which came into existence by deed dated 2 April 2002. The respondent assessee is engaged in Liquor/Country Liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer business as per the license issued by Government of Rajasthan for different districts. The respondent assessee in its return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 declared an income of Rs. 60 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 27 Februa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the CIT-15, Mumbai vide the letter No. DIT (Inv.)/Jpr./2008-2009/581, dated 25.11.2008. In view of the above I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee AOP has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further I also believe that the assessee has failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment in respect of the amount deposited with the Excise Department." 5. The respondentassessee objected to the same. The objection was two fold - change of opinion and no reason to believe income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However the Assessing Officer rejected the objections and passed the assessment order dated 24 December 2009 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res out of Rs. 7.60 Crores deposited with the State Excise Department, State of Rajasthan. Thus the note states that no explanation was forthcoming with regard to source of the balance amount of Rs. 6.20 Crores. However on examining the report of Addl. DIT, the Tribunal finds that there is no mention of failure to explain the source of Rs. 6.20 Crores by the respondent assessee, but the failure is of an individual to explain his source of deposit. Moreover, the Tribunal records the fact that the deposit made with the State of Rajasthan was in February 2002 i.e. much before the respondent assessee came into existence in April 2002. Thus, the impugned order records that the reasons recorded do not provide the link between the information obta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Additional DIT, Jaipur was to the effect that the respondent assessee had not explained the source of its capital contribution to the extent of Rs. 6.20 Crores. This, the Tribunal found was factually incorrect as a report of the Additional DIT, Jaipur makes no mention of any explanation offered by the respondent assessee but the entire report is on the statement made by an individual and refers to his conduct. Consequently, the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice proceed on factually erroneous basis with the result that the live link necessary to be provided between the tangible material and the conclusion that income has escaped assessment is not found in the present case. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
