9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crutiny assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, as such there was no tangible material in the hands of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the proceedings. Assessing Officer has acted mechanically based on the information received from the Investigating Wing, Surat for the purpose of reopening of the assessment and any independent satisfaction to the effect that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not reflected. It is a settled principle of law that the respondent cannot justify by taking recourse to some material and information beyond the scope of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to reopening. In the instant case, the respondent has traveled beyond the scope of reasons recorded in order to justify the action of reopening. It is pertinent to note that while disposing of the objections against the reopening, Assessing Officer has observed that it has credible information as received by the office pertaining to the transaction claimed as a part of turnover and same can be clearly made out from the copy of the reasons recorded provided by the office. After close scrutiny of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 148 of the Act. 2.3 At the request of writ applicant, the reasons recorded have been provided. The relevant portion of reasons quoted as under: Reasons recorded: Brief details of the Assessee : The assessee company filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 showing total income at Rs.Nil (claimed current year to be carried forward loss of (-)₹ 12,21,20,709/-). The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of FDY/POY/Texturised Yarn. Thereafter, order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 18.12.2018 determining assessed carried forward loss of (-) ₹ 8,98,89,759/-. 2. This office is in possession of a piece of information disseminated by Investigation Wing, Surat. An enquiry was carried by the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-2, Surat in the case of Shri Shailesh R. Naika concern connected to it, after information was received about the suspicious financial transaction entered into by them. 2.1. The DDIT(Inv.)-2, Surat has reported that an open inquiry was initiated with the prior approval of the Addl. DIT (Inv), Surat. Summons u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to A.Y.201213 are bogus in nature. By making bogus transaction amounting to ₹ 7,50,055/- during the F.Y.2011-12 relevant A.Y.2012-13, the assessee company thereby attempt to reduce its resultant tax liability. 6. In view of above facts/material available on records and after analyzing the same I have reason to believe and am satisfied that income of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 7,50.055/- has escaped assessment for A.Y.2012-13 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. 7. In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was made on 18.12.2018. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year consideration have been recorded above (ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for the writ applicant and Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ applicant has raised the following contentions: 4.1 It was argued that the impugned notice as well as impugned order disposing of the objections are patently illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction because the condition precedent for valid reopening under Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied. 4.2 It was pointed out that the impugned amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- has already been added by the Assessing Officer at the original assessment stage, as the transaction with Mr. Naika were scrutinized at the original assessment stage and the sum of share capital and share premium received from Shaileshkumar Naika was added by the then Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the condition precedent for resorting to reopening of the proceedings under Section 147 is not satisfied, as there was no escapement of any income chargeable to tax. 4.3 Referring to reasons recorded, learned senior counsel for the writ applicant submitted that the action of reopening is not permissible for car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urat in the case of Shaileshkumar Naika and after verification of the information, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material evidence necessary for assessment has not been made by the assessee. Therefore, the action of reopening is justifiable. The assessing Officer has verified the case record and drawn his satisfaction that income to the tune of ₹ 7,50,000/- has escaped assessment. 7. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel appearing for the revenue urged that the writ application may not be entertained. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the materials on record. 9. It appears from the record that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 27.9.2012 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and after considering the necessary materials submitted by the assessee, the then Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act and made various additions including ₹ 2,99,05,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of Share capital and share premium received by the writ applicant during the year under consideration, which inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aped assessment for the year 2012-13 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 13. We take the notice of the fact that the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and after a detailed inquiry the revenue had framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 various additions were made including an addition of ₹ 2,99,05,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration which included the sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- received from Shaileshkumar Naika. 14. A plain reading of the reasons recorded revels that the Assessing Officer has solely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing- Surat. We are of the view that, the Assessing Officer has not applied his independent mind while recording the reasons that the income has escaped assessment. The original assessment record was with the Assessing Officer. The scrutiny assessment framed by the respondent has been challenged by the assessee company and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. As the issue of alleged transaction of ₹ 7,50,055/- was earlier added by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
