Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 827 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - notice issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year - accommodation entry by way of share capital - Held that:- In this particular case, the receipt of money through banking channels by the applicant for shares of the petitioner company may be considered to be a full disclosure but it may not be a true and full disclosure if the facts alleged in the reasons are not found to be false during the proceeding for reassessment. In the present case this would be an issue which would be considered during the reassessment proceedings. Thus we find that in the present case it cannot be said that there is no basis to conclude that there has been a failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary of assessment. On reading of the reason in support of the impugned notice as a whole, we find that it does bring out the failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. There is no ambiguity in the information which would require investigation. The information of accommodation entries has been given by a participant and this is reason enough to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. At this stage, the Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively prove that the reasons in support of the impugned notice establish that the petitioner has taken accommodation entries. This is a matter which would be subject of further investigation during the reassessment proceeding. At that stage it would be open to the petitioner to raise all permissible defences and also to insist on cross examination of the persons who have made a statement implicating the petitioner in having participated in taking accommodation entires. Thus we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and injunct the Revenue from proceeding further with the impugned notice for reassessment. However it would be open to the petitioner during the reassessment proceedings to challenge the reopening notice on the ground that the statement made by the Pravin Kumar Jain which forms the basis of the reopening notice is not sustainable. - Appeal dismissed.
|