Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 498 - AT - Income TaxReopening of Assessment u/s 147 - Reasons Recorded For Reopening Of Assessment - Addition under section 69C for failure to justify purchases and Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- On careful perusal of the above reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer, we find that as he could not find any return of income filed by the assessee in ITD system, there was no question of making further inquiries. It is an admitted fact that assessee has not filed any return of income electronically. It was mandatory at that time. Therefore, AO was of a reasonable belief that assessee has booked bogus purchases during the year. As there was no information available about the details of the payment made by the assessee, recording of those transactions in the books of the assessee and any further information about the income of the assessee, no fault can be found in reopening of the assessment. Merely some difference in mentioning of the amount, when the name of the party is mentioned correctly does not make the reopening of the assessment invalid. Further with respect to the claim of the assessee that whether the goods have been purchased from Maruti enterprises or Apex Corporation, the learned assessing officer has mentioned both the names. Therefore, it does not invalidate the reopening of the assessment. We are of the view that the AO had valid “reason to believe‟ that income of the assessee has escaped assessment when a specific information in the form of “tangible material‟ received from DGIT investigation that assessee has obtained only bills without material from different parties - Therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT – A in upholding the reopening of the assessment. Ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed. Addition u/s 69C - We find that the AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment on the basis of specific information that 5 different parties have provided bogus bills to the assessee, he has also the information that those parties have given their statement that they are non genuine suppliers, the information is also travelled to the DGIT investigation to the learned assessing officer, therefore, it is evident that assessing officer was having information about those parties such as their address and whereabouts. Therefore when the AO was having complete information about those parties and was so sure that those are the bogus parties and has merely provided the bills without supply of the material and also having information about making a statement before a government authority, not providing the correct address by the assessee, assessee was not having the same, is not fatal to the issue. The learned assessing officer himself made any enquiry with those parties further with respect to genuineness of purchase of material by the assessee. The only allegation of the assessing officer is that assessee has failed to show receipt of goods as well as failed to produce those parties. Furthermore, looking to the nature of the business, assessee cannot be asked to produce more details then what is generally kept by an assessee in that line of the business. In view of these facts, the addition made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT – A cannot be upheld. Accordingly assessing officer is directed to delete the addition made u/s 69C of the act with respect to purchases from five different parties. Deduction u/s 80IB - As the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment with respect to disallowance/addition u/s 69C of the act has already been deleted no other disallowance, which are not part of the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer, has any legs to stand, but fails. Therefore, without going into the merits of the disallowance u/s 80 IB of the act vis-à-vis filing of the return by the assessee u/s 139 (1) of the act the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80 IB (10) cannot be disallowed. Even otherwise, the fact shows that assessee has consistently been allowed deduction u/s 80 IB (10) in earlier assessment years as well as subsequent assessment years. For peculiar reasons, assessee could not file electronic return of income but has filed manual return of income within time allowed u/s 139 (1) of the act. Therefore as relying on Prabhakar Damodar Gawade [2019 (5) TMI 844 - ITAT PUNE] we hold that the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the act made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT - A is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, ground appeal are allowed.
|