Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1761 - ITAT MUMBAIValidity of the reassessment proceedings - reasons to believe - period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired - bogus purchases - Held that:- Find substantial force in the contention of the Ld. A.R that now when a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, viz. A.Y. 2007-08 had already expired on 31.03.2012, therefore, the A.O while issuing the notice u/s 148, dated 21.03.2014 remained under a statutory obligation to have obtained the sanction of either of the authorities contemplated under the proviso of Sec. 151(1). We find that a perusal of the ‘Reasons to believe’ clearly reveals that the A.O had obtained the approval of the Additional CIT, Range-9(3), Mumbai u/s 151(2), which had been granted by the latter authority, vide letter. That on deliberation on the aforesaid facts as stands gathered from the copy of the ‘Reasons to believe’ (footnote), reveals that the A.O was absolutely aware that it was a case of reopening and not as that of a fresh assessment u/s 147. The approval as contemplated per the mandate of proviso of Sec. 151(1) had not been obtained from the appropriate authority, failing which the very issuance of the notice u/s 148 and the framing of the reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Now when the assessee had substantially discharged the Onus as was cast upon it to prove the genuineness and veracity of the purchases made from the aforesaid supplier parties, therefore, no part of such purchases were liable to be disallowed in the hands of the assessee. We thus not being persuaded to accept the scaling down of the addition by the CIT(A) from 12.5% to 5% of the aggregate value of such purchases, which to our considered view is not supported by any rhyme or reason, thus, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and hold that no addition/disallowance of any part of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned supplier parties was called for in the hands of the assessee. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 wherein the additions made by the A.O had been assailed before us by the assessee on merits, is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations
|