9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 28th January, 2016. The Petitioner had highlighted this fundamental error at the initiation of the case by stating that his income was mentioned as ₹ 20,56,145/- instead of ₹ 69,71,191/-. This was summarily rejected by the Respondent by an order dated 14th October, 2016 stating that the amount of ₹ 20,56,145/- instead of ₹ 69,71,191/- being mentioned as the income of the Petitioner was a clerical mistake and that the latter figure would be treated as his income. It is evident that the sanction of the Principal CIT as disclosed with the letter dated 25th May 2016 was obtained ex post facto. The Court is, however, of the view that if the correct income i.e. ₹ 69,71,191/- had been put before the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing reasons for reopening the assessment: Circle 62(1), New Delhi Case is reopened u/s 147 in the case of Md. Shamshad Khan S/o Md.Chand Khan, R/o (i) 23/3, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi- 110005 (ii) U-24A/2, G. F., Phase-Ill, DLF City, Gurgaon -PAN- ACUPK8807F, A.Y. 2010-11. Reasons for reopening the case u/s 147 The assessee has filed its return of income on 01.10.2010 at an income of ₹ 20,56,145/-. Information was received from the Income-tax Officer Ward-4(5), Gurgaon, that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, was carried out on 27.06.2013 in the Santosh Group of Institutions. During the course of recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, relevant seized documents were confro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s opening balance in the relevant assessment year showed a credit of about ₹ 2 crores; that he was a man of means and that the donation amount was duly accounted for and disclosed in the return already filed. Therefore, he had sufficient monies to make the donation, which fact he was not resiling from. He contends that if the Assessing Officer ('AO') had examined the return filed, it would have become evident that the withdrawals and the donation of ₹ 28,75,000/- were duly accounted for. 4. The petitioner contends that under Section 151 (1) of the Act for reopening of a case after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, prior approval of the Commissioner/Principal CIT is essential. However, in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion/capitation fees in cash, to the tune of ₹ 28,75,000/- from the petitioner. He also offered this unaccounted money for taxation in the relevant AY. In the circumstances, the petitioner too was thought to have undisclosed income that had escaped assessment. 6. Having considered the aforesaid contentions, the Court is of the view that where a third party has been proceeded against as a recipient of the donation/capitation fees insofar as the said amount was not offered for assessment, it would have to undergo the relevant proceedings for appropriate taxation, etc. However, the same could not necessarily be the basis for granting the approval or constitute 'reasons to believe' that this undisclosed income of the recipient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 69,71,191/-. This was summarily rejected by the Respondent by an order dated 14th October, 2016 stating that the amount of ₹ 20,56,145/- instead of ₹ 69,71,191/- being mentioned as the income of the Petitioner was a clerical mistake and that the latter figure would be treated as his income. 8. Interestingly, the document supplied to the Petitioner pursuant to his RTI application shows the following portion evidencing the approval of the CIT: 9. From the above, it is evident that the sanction of the Principal CIT as disclosed with the letter dated 25th May 2016 was obtained ex post facto. 10. The Court is, however, of the view that if the correct income i.e. ₹ 69,71,191/- had been put before the CIT a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
