9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . She filed her return of income on 31.7.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,50,256/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by recording following reasons:- "Ms. Meena Dixit - (PAN AFVPK1638B A.Y. 2007-08 The assessee has filed return of income on 31.07.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,50,2567-. Information was received from ITO-17(1)(1), Mumbai, vide his letter dated 10.03.2014, bearing No. ITO-17(1)(1)/CIB Intimation-2006/2013-14 that the assessee had transactions amounting to Rs. 12,09,679/- with Standard Chartered Bank. It is seen from Annual Information Return (AIR) data that the assesses has paid a total of Rs. 15,95,000/- for purchase of bonds issued by RBI. The assessee has also entered into transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e escapement of income. The question as to whether there was escapement of income or not could not have been determined by the AO on receipt of certain information without making fishing enquiries. Accordingly the Learned AR submitted that the assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of any reason which gives suspicion that there was escapement of income. For this proposition, learned AR relied on following case laws :- * Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (56 DTR 212) * Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (375 ITR 460) Accordingly he submitted that the reopening of assessment is not valid for the above said reasons. 4. The Learned AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to examine transactions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded that the assessee has purchased the properties. Accordingly the learned CIT(A) has taken the view that it is an apparent error committed by Joint Sub-Registration Office, MSD, Andheri, Mumbai and hence reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be found fault with. The Learned AR submitted that the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be modified or amended or cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or by making oral submission as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R B Vadkar (268 ITR 332). 6. Accordingly the learned AR submitted that the reopening of assessment is not valid in law and, in any case, additions made by the Assessing Officer in the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned reassessment order are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly. 10. We have also noticed that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to verify the three transactions mentioned above. As rightly pointed out by learned AR, the Assessing Officer has received information about the transactions and he did not refer to any material from which he drew the belief that there was escapement of income. The question as to whether or not there was escapement of income could have been answered by the AO only after making fishing enquiries. Hence there is merit in the contentions of the Ld A.R that the information received by the AO merely gave reason to suspect that there was escapement of income. The reopening of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
