9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter within the scope of the cases in which reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated. There is distinction between the reasons to believe and reason to suspect while the former is good enough to hold that income has escaped assessment and to initiate suitable remedial measures in respect thereof, the latter can, at best, be the ground to verify and examine the matter further. Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further can never be a reason good enough to believe that income has escaped assessment and reopen the assessment proceedings, that too, the very initiation of proceedings but the facts of the instant case was devoid of merit and reassessment is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee - I. T. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had billed royalty for ₹ 1,68,59,935 for the assessment year 2006-07 but offered only ₹ 52,31,511 for the assessment under the head other income and similarly for the assessment year 2007- 08, billed royalty of ₹ 1,83,01,929 instead of ₹ 75,37,050. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act restricting the TDS claim to ₹ 1,97,193 (assessment year 2006-07) and ₹ 7,13,670 (assessment year 2007-08). Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee was in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee is eligible for TDS credit only to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the TDS certificates in relation to royalty, the assessee was in receipt of ₹ 2,61,08,623. However, the assessee has shown ₹ 75,37,500 only as receipt in the profit and loss account. It is also verified from the 3CD report that the assessee has not paid ₹ 1,85,71,573 to those, to whom the royalty is payable and as such the TDS has not been deducted as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act. Hence the amount unpaid of ₹ 1,85,71,573 is not allowable under section 40(a)(ia). (ii) Similarly, the assessee has claimed TDS credit for ₹ 15,87,185 as against the TDS certificates filed for the assessment year 2007-08 of ₹ 11,04,795. But the credit for TDS has been given as claimed by the assessee. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uspect while the former is good enough to hold that income has escaped assessment and to initiate suitable remedial measures in respect thereof, the latter can, at best, be the ground to verify and examine the matter further. Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further can never be a reason good enough to believe that income has escaped assessment and reopen the assessment proceedings, that too, the very initiation of proceedings but the facts of the instant case was devoid of merit and reassessment is bad in law. A similar view had been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Rafeeq Iqbal v. ITO (ITA No. 709/Hyd./2013 dated September 13, 2013) and also by the Kolkata Bench in the case of Meherla Reid and Co. v. ITO report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
