9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerning AY 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are two fold; (i) challenging the legality of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and (ii) challenging the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in making addition of Rs. 7,79,178/- on merits as unaccounted income in pursuance of alleged wrongful jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act. 3. When matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, challenged the action of the AO in usurping jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act wrongfully. The learned AR contended that the reasons recorded by the AO do not meet the pre-requisites for assumption of jurisdiction and therefore the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act pursuant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he initiation of proceedings under s. 147 of the Act by the AO is based on certain information stated to be received from the Director of Income Tax (I&CI), New Delhi vide a letter dated 07.03.2013. Based on such information, the AO has proposed to reopen the case inter alia with expression "the said transactions required to be verified thoroughly". The learned counsel in this context submitted that no reference to the nature and description of information purportedly received from the office of Director of Income Tax is discernible either from the reasons recorded or even from assessment order. It was thus submitted that the AO not privy to any such information which is the basis for drastic action taken under s. 147 of the Act to re-open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the rival submissions. We have also perused the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 147 of the Act which is under challenge. It will be apt to reproduce reasons recorded hereunder for easy reference:- "The assessee has filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 25/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 22,60,660/- The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. However, no scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) has been made. The Search & Seizure action was carried out by the Department on 25.11.2009 in the case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Ltd., which also covered its group companies, controlled by Shri Mukesh M. Chokshi, at Mumbai. Shri Mukesh Chokshi himself admitted that in his statement recorded on oath u/s. 131 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, it is self-evident that no definite formation of belief towards escapement of income was existing at the time of issuance of notice by the AO. What the AO really intended is to make an objective inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information received from other wing of the department to find out if there is any escapement of chargeable income indeed. The AO merely seeks to conclude that there is a case for investigation to unearth and ascertain truthfulness of alleged transactions. This is not the same thing as saying that there are 'reasons to believe' that some chargeable income has escaped assessment. Ostensibly, the AO, at best, has made out a case of probable escapement in contrast to a definite prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
