Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 710 - ITAT AGRAValidity of the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 on account of change of opinion - Whether there was prima facie material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case? - HELD THAT:- The sufficiency and correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered as this stage. The decision relied by AR which justifiable on the facts are not applicable to the facts and the case as being justifiable, further the AR has not brought on record in contrary judgments in rebuttal to the contentions of the department. We hold that there is no sufficient material to establish that there was change of opinion on the part of the AO while recording reasons to believe u/s 147 of the Act. We find no merit and substance in the argument and in the absence of corroborative evidence to substantiate the contentions of the assessee on the change of opinion of the AO, the ld. Counsel, we approve the ‘reason to believe’ that the income escaped assessment in the meaning of section 147. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the reopening of the assessment. Following the Hon’ble Apex Court RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LIMITED [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] on the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO has ‘reason to believe’ that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147. Interest income received from FDR’s - Double addition being duly disclosed in the P & L account and balance sheet in the return of income filed - We note that in the original assessment order the AO has applied net profit rate only on the contract receipts. AR has not brought on record any evidence to demonstrate either before the AO or the ld. CIT(A) or even in the appellate proceedings before us to show as to how the amount of interest income received from FDR’s could be treated as part of assessee’s business income or contract receipts when the net profit rate was applied by the AO on the contract receipts. Further the counsel has not established that whether there was a pre-condition to please the aforesaid the FDR’s to procure business before applying for determination of contract tenders by the assessee. Assessee’s claim to consider the interest on FDRs as part of his business income to give benefit of double taxation is not supported by a logical or cogent explanation. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the interest income from FDRs as other income of the assessee in the reassessment proceedings and confirmed the addition made by the AO.
|