9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived unsecured loans of ₹ 10.27 crores. According to the AO, this would show that the assessee had received unexplained cash credit of ₹ 10.27 crores in terms of section 68. He, therefore, had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. We do not find that the reasons recorded by the AO are such that it can be stated that the reasons lacked validity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the petitioner had made full disclosures about such unsecured loans and in any case, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 is not yet final, the assessee had filed appeal which is pending. Neither of these two grounds permit us to quash the impugned notice of reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income and profit loss account, no such business activity found to be carried out by the assessee. 2. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for AY 2013-14 on the reason of Large increase in unsecured loans. During the course of the assessment proceedings for this AY, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to 10 loan creditors. Out these, 8 notices were returned back and balance 2 loan creditors did not replied. Considering these facts and details/documents available on record, the Assessing Officer added unsecured loans of ₹ 8,71,62,441/- received during the FY 2012-13 as income of the assessee. The CIT (A) confirmed this addition. During the course of this assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts during the AY 2012-13. 2. The petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening of assessment. Such objections were however rejected by an order dated 31.5.2019. Hence, the petition. 3. At the outset, we may record that the return filed by the petitioner to the said A.Y. 2012-13 was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act ( the Act for short), without scrutiny. In that view of the matter, as is settled through a series of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Assessing Officer had much wider latitude in reopening the assessment if he had tangible material at his end to enable him to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could by recording reasons, issue notice for su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 133(6) were issued to such firms also, which were returned back or were not responded to. The assessee also did not submit his reply in connection with the said loans of ₹ 10.27 crores. The Assessing Officer had verified the return of the income of the assessee for the said Assessment Year 2012-2013 and found that the assessee had disclosed having received unsecured loans of ₹ 10.27 crores. According to the Assessing Officer, this would show that the assessee had received unexplained cash credit of ₹ 10.27 crores in terms of section 68 of the Act. He, therefore, had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 5. We do not find that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
