9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), proposing to initiate re-assessment proceedings in respect of assessment year (AY) 2015-16 and an order dated 24.09.2024, passed under Section 148A (3) of the Act. The petitioner also impugns a notice dated 25.09.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act. 4. The petitioner (hereafter the Assessee) had filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 20.08.2015. Search and seizure operations were conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 07.04.2017, in Sharp Group of cases. The premises of the Assessee was also searched, and pursuant to the said operations, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 09.07.2019. In response to the said notice, the Assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year (AY 2015-16), declaring an income of Rs. 7,26,500/-. The assessment proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act, were completed and the assessment order was passed on 23.12.2019, determining the Assessee's income at Rs. 11,43,11,530/-. The enhancement in the declared income was on account of an addition of Rs. 11,35,85,032/- made under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd. 33. The undisputed fact is that income from the same transaction USR 3 for A.Y under consideration has been accepted by the department as income of M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd. Therefore, there appears to be no motive behind the allegation that the assessee Shri Sanjay Singhal has taken accommodation entries to reduce his taxable income as he has never claimed any loss in his return of income. 34. The undisputed fact is also that transactions are not in the name of the assessee and therefore, the assessee cannot claim benefits arising from such transactions in his return of income. 35. Considering the totality of facts from all possible angles, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A)." 7. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the said decision before this Court, being ITA No. 807/2023, which was dismissed by an order dated 22.12.2023. 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) issued a notice dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148A (b) of the Act, which was followed by the impugned order under Section 148 (3) of the Act. The AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for reinitiating the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved." 11. It is apparent from the above that the said observations cannot be read as permitting reopening of assessments, even in cases where necessary conditions for invoking Sections 147 and 148 of the Act are not satisfied. The said decision also does not permit reopening of assessments beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act. 12. We are unable to accept that the decision of this court in ITA No. 807/2023 [order dated 22.12.2023 dismissing the Revenue's appeal] can be read as findings and directions within the meaning of Section 150 of the Act, to permit the Revenue to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act. The said issue is also covered by the decision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:7423-DB. The relevant observations of the said decision are set out below: "38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147 and 148 of the Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayers that were made therein. The Revenue had specifically alluded to Section 150 of the Act and sought appropriate clarifications enabling it to proceed afresh. It had also sought the liberty to commence proceedings for reassessment within 60 days of the disposal of that application. The said application, however, came to be dismissed with it being left open to the respondents to move a formal application for review, if so chosen and advised. It appears, however, that no such review was ultimately moved. 42. Regard must also be had to the judgment rendered in the batch of U.K. Paints, and where while according liberty to the respondents to initiate reassessment, the Supreme Court pertinently observed that the same would be subject to the proposed action being in accordance with law and if "permissible in law". Thus, neither Abhisar Buildwell nor U.K. Paints are liable to be read as enabling the respondents to overcome the statutory bar of limitation which may have come into play. Those judgments cannot possibly be construed as freeing the respondents from the obligation of independently establishing that the proposed action for reassessment would otherwise be in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
