9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surely not be a tangible material to enable the Assessing authority to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Letter of Assistant Director (Investigation) also did not contain any further material regarding the allegations made by the complainant. In the said letter, he merely brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that during investigation in connection with the said complaint against Shri Jugal M. Biyani and Shri Rajesh R Bansal, it was found that there were allegations of the assessee-company having claimed undue rebates from the Central Excise department. This letter was addressed on 28.03.2011. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was getting time barred on 31.03.2011. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, under time pressure. He mechanically issued the notice for reopening relying on these two documents. Neither of these two documents contained any material regarding the irregularities of the assessee-company. The complaint contained allegations of a private citizen. The letter of the Assistant Director contained no further information on the issue of reliability of the allegations made in the complaint. Though this letter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring a toal income of Rs. NIL was filed by the assessee company on 01-11-2004. Assessment in the case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08-11-2006, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 11,67,900 restricting the deduction u/s. 80HHC at ₹ 4,54,428/- instead of ₹ 16,22,353/- claimed by the assessee. The information received from Assistant Director of Income Tax (inv.) Unit-III, Surat that during investigations pertaining to a TEP against Jugal M. Biyani and Rajesh R Bansal, it was found that there is an allegation against M/s. Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. of claiming undue rebates from Central Excise Department. The matter is being followed up with the Central Excise Authotieis to obtain information on this issue. It is alleged that the Director of the company Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd Shri Rajesh Rameshwardayal Bansal and Jugal Mahendra Biyani claimed rebate of crores of Rs. And after coming in light stopped working for the period A.Y. 2004-05. In view of the above facts, the undersigned has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2004-05 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the undersigned is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of claiming undue rebates from Central Exercise department. The matter was being followed up with the Central Exercise Authority to obtain information on the issue. The allegations were that the directors of the company had claimed rebate of crores of rupees and after coming to light, stopped such activity. From the original file, we notice that the same contains a copy of a complaint from a private individual whose identity presumably for the purpose of confidentiality has been withheld by blanking out the reference of the sender of the letter. This undated letter, which is written to the Director General of Investigation, Ahmedabad, seems to have been inwarded in the department on 05.03.2008. In such letter, the informant has made serious allegations against Shri Jugal Biyani and Shri Rajesh Bansal, two of the directors of the petitioner-company. The allegations include irregularities and declaration of stock of grey fabrics in import of natural silk. These allegations, however, are in connection with the companies other than the present petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner-company is concerned, this letter suggests that the said two persons have floated many firms, have earned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing had carried out any inquiry after receipt of such a private complaint, the contents thereof are not on record before us and at any rate, never brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Before the Assessing Officer there were only two documents. First was the said undated complaint inwarded in the department on 05.03.2008 and second was the covering letter of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing) dated 28.03.2011 along with which the said private complaint was annexed. As noted, a private complaint without any further investigation by the authorities surely not be a tangible material to enable the Assessing authority to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Letter of Assistant Director (Investigation) also did not contain any further material regarding the allegations made by the complainant. In the said letter, he merely brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that during investigation in connection with the said complaint against Shri Jugal M. Biyani and Shri Rajesh R Bansal, it was found that there were allegations of the assessee-company having claimed undue rebates from the Central Excise department. This lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income in the particular year. 12. While concluding, he further observed that: From the above, it is evident that in order to verify the correctness of the income/profit of the business before arriving at the quantum of reduction allowable as claimed, requires examination of books of accounts and other related documents relevant to it. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the assessee had not mentioned a single decision of case laws which support the contention placed that the reopening proceedings initiated u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio. 13. In this order also therefore, the Assessing Officer stressed the need to verify the accounts of the assessee. In the affidavit in reply filed in this petition also, similar stand was taken by the Assessing Officer while stating that on basis of said information, the detail verification in this regard is absolutely necessary to find out the possibility of escapement of income for the assessment year 2004-05. There is a possibility of a nexus between the petitioner, its directors and other firms to systematically earn hidden income by claiming rebate from the Central Excise Department and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
