9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the issue with respect to the commission expenditure claimed by the petitioner had undergone a further fresh inquiry – albeit in one previous AY 1996-97. The Assessing Officer, on that occasion too felt that the expenditure needed more scrutiny or inquiry. The assessee / petitioner was able to show that M/s Hallmarks Healthcare Ltd. was an existing company which had filed returns and was assessed to income tax. The statement of Sanjay Rastogi may have been the starting point for some kind of an inquiry but in the circumstances of this case, to hold or assume that the individual concern had some association and every transaction of that concern needed scrutiny, was too far at a distance to tread as to sustain as ‘reasons to believe’, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,00,000 From the facts stated above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to ₹ 4,00,000/- has escaped assessment. As the original assessment of M/s AMSA India P. Ltd. for the A.Y.1997-98 was made u/s 143(3) on 21-2-2000 and a period of four years from the end of the A.Y. 1997-98 has expired, the approval of CIT, Delhi-I is solicited for reopening of the case u/s 147 of the IT Act. 2. The petitioner contends that the sole basis for the reassessment notice, i.e. the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Rastogi that he and his associates provided bogus entries to various entities, could not have been the basis for valid reassessment notice. It is pointed out that the referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 3. Placing reliance upon the ruling in the cases of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2003) 256 ITR 1 (Del) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del), it was submitted that there is no live link between the so called fresh material relied upon by the Revenue and the assessee. Elaborating on this, the learned counsel argued that the nature of inquiry in AY 1996-97, about the expenditure, was regarding the genuineness of the concern i.e. M/s Hallmarks Healthcare Ltd.. Having satisfied himself that the said concern was a regular assessee and an existing company, the assessment was finalized. In the fresh materials sought to be used by the Revenue to reopen the assessment, all that it relies upon is the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. The second aspect - and more crucially in this case-is that the issue with respect to the commission expenditure claimed by the petitioner had undergone a further fresh inquiry albeit in one previous AY 1996-97. The Assessing Officer, on that occasion too felt that the expenditure needed more scrutiny or inquiry. The assessee / petitioner was able to show that M/s Hallmarks Healthcare Ltd. was an existing company which had filed returns and was assessed to income tax. The statement of Sanjay Rastogi may have been the starting point for some kind of an inquiry but in the circumstances of this case, to hold or assume that the individual concern had some association and every transaction of that concern needed scrutiny, was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
