9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. So it should be noted that this was the factual basis/foundation based on information from Investigation Wing, which was the basis and reason for him to form a belief that income of assessee which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, when the assessee brought to the notice of the A.O that the assessee company did not receive ₹ 25,00,000/- from M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd., the A.O finds that the assessee company has received money from M/s Radharani Vyapaar (P) Ltd. According to the A.O, M/s Radharani Vyapaar (P) Ltd. has received the money directly from M/s Kokila Trading Co. and M/s Kokila Trading Co. has received money from M/s. DRS Enterprise. Thus, it is noted that the factual foundation on which the AO based his reason for reopening does not exist. Information adverse may trigger reason to suspect and not reason to believe . So the AO should have conducted reasonable enquiry and collected material which could make him believe, that in fact there is escapement of income, which in this case AO did not do, so the reopening based on the reasons recorded by him to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence of the concerns at their respective given address. According to the A.O, as per the database available with department, these two concerns are interlinked and existing merely on paper having no real existence and are controlled and managed by well-known entry operators of Kolkata for the purpose of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arrange bogus LTCG/STCL unsecured loans etc. According to the A.O, he examined the bank statement of these two companies (M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd.). He observed that these accounts have been frequently used for depositing unaccounted cash which were layered through several bank accounts for jamakharchi/shell concerns and then ultimately to the bank accounts of the beneficiary. According to the A.O, during the process of investigation it was found that the assessee company M/s. Excel Financial Consultant (P) Ltd. is one of the beneficiary which received a fund of ₹ 25,00,000/- from these two shell companies. According to the A.O, from a perusal of the records and return of the assessee, he noted that the assessee company has no real business acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Excel Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. maintained with Dhanlaxmi Bank (A/c No. 060102000092816) it is found that there was total credits of ₹ 19,60,98,794/- into their accounts and then transferred to various A/cs through RTGS within that day or very next day. From the transaction it is found that only huge funds were routed through the assessee company s account for providing accommodation entries without any logic and unaccounted income of other business activities which the assessee company has brought back into its books of accounts through shell companies. From the cash trail it is found that Funds were transferred to M/s DRS Enterprises (P) Ltd. then transferred to Radharani Vyapaar's account after that finally transferred to assessee company s A/c. and all are maintained in Dhanalaxmi Bank. From the Bank statement of assessee company's A/c No. O60102000092816. It is found that during the F.Y. 2010-11, 82 Lakhs were transferred to assessee's A/c from Radharani Vyapaar's A/c. From the transaction of the Bank A/c it is clear that the assessee company is a Jama-kharchi company as huge funds were credited debited during the day or very next day. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore this Tribunal as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (NTPC) V/s. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). In order to examine the legal validity and the reasons recorded after reopening the assessment, let us have a look at the reasons recorded by the A.O for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which is given at Page 2 of the paper-book as under: The assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 04.11.2011 declaring a total income of ₹ 3,410/- as business income. The assessee has not assessed on regular assessment. The said return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the IT. Act 1961 on 24.01.2012. Subsequently, information has been received from the ADIT (inv.),Unit-4(2), Kolkata vide letter bearing No. DDIT(Inv )/Kol/Unit.4(2)/Umeshwar Singh/2017-18/6683- 83A. dated 15.1 1.2017, regarding credible sources in respect of M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.( A/c. No 008808000000041), cash deposit of ₹ 6,6,57,000/- and Human Traders Pvt. Ltd. (A/C. No 008808000000022), cash deposit of ₹ 59,16,68,000/- During investment summons were issued u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the above mentioned comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (P) Ltd. amounting to ₹ 25,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 as per provision of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since more than four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year 2011-12 the case is put up to the Pr. CIT-5, Kolkata for his kind perusal and grant of sanction u/s 151(1) of the I.T. Act, if satisfied. 7. Having perused the reasons recorded by the AO before reopening and when the validity of the order u/s. 147 of the Act depends upon the AO rightly assuming jurisdiction as contemplated by law to make an order of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, let us understand the settled position of law on the legal issue at hand. We note that before the AO assumes jurisdiction to re-open it is necessary that the conditions laid down in the said section 147 has to be satisfied viz., AO should record reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for that assessment year has escaped assessment. If this condition is not satisfied at the first place, then it cannot be said the AO has validly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether on the basis of the reasons recorded by the AO, he could hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructed in law in understanding jurisdictional fact and law (mixed question of fact and law) the reason to believe escapement of income (supra). 8. The AO, who is a quasi judicial authority is empowered to reopen the completed assessment only in a given case wherein there is reason to believe escapement of chargeable income to tax which is the jurisdictional fact law and sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment. It must be kept in mind that 'reasons to believe' postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. Even if there is foundation based on information there must be some reason warrant holding the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has to be kept in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran Sons P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) held that the expression reason to believe occurring in sec. 147 is stronger than the expression if satisfied and such requirement has to be met by the AO in the reasons recorded before usurping the jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. It must also be kept in mind that information adverse against the assessee may trigger reason to susp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,00,000/- from the two companies (M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd.). Thereafter, the A.O noted that the assessee company has no real business activities since there are no purchase and sales found during the relevant F.Y and the assessee company has shown interest income of ₹ 20,93,972/- and there is no logic of receiving of ₹ 25,00,000/- from the aforesaid two shell companies (M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd.). By this modus operandi, the assessee s unaccounted money has been brought back to the books of the assessee. After recording these reason the AO issued notice u/s 148 for re-opening the assessment of AY 2011-12. It is noted that after receiving reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reassessing the assessment, the assessee filed its objection and also filed an affidavit dated 10.11.2018 (page 8 of paper-book) wherein it has been clearly asserted that it has not received ₹ 25,00,000/- from M/s. DRS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer pursuant to the objection raised by the assessee against reopening, changed his factual allegation stated therein the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. In this context, it has to be noted that the assessment year under consideration A.Y 2011-12 and as per the law in force, when there is a credit entry in the books of the assessee, as per section 68 of the Act, the assessee is duty bound when called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain the nature and source of the credit. In A.Y 2011-12, the assessee is not required as per law to find out the source of source when it receives credit in its books. So, when the law applicable for A.Y 2011-12 obliges the assessee to only bring to the notice of the A.O the source of its credit in this case, M/s Radharani Vyapaar (P) Ltd., it is not obliged to find out from where M/s Radharani Vyapaar (P) Ltd. had received the money for investing in the assessee company i.e. in respect of M/s. Kokila Trading Co. and even M/s. DRS Enterprise. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the A.O to legally reopen the assessment by firstly alleging that the assessee has received ₹ 25,00,000/- from M/s. DRS Enterprise and M/s Hanuman Traders Pvt. Ltd., is not factually correct and when objected the A.O has himself acknowledged that the assessee has not received money from M/s. DRS Enterprise and M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
