Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2231 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Investment made by assessee - Eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- We find that in the facts of the present case, there is no reference to any fact, information or tangible material referred to by the AO to hold that some material was considered by him after which he formed the belief that income has escaped assessment. AO notes the bare fact as available in AIR information. Apart from that there is no other material referred. The mere fact that on investment is made in a specific year by itself cannot be a triggering fact or for reopening. It may be a triggering factor to consider the record and then record reasons referring to material which led to the formation of the belief. AO is well aware that in the returns there was no column for referring to investments made. Thus the so called justification that as per the office records the assessee had not declared this transactions in her income tax return by itself is of no relevance and supports the assessee's arguments that no other material was seen by the AO and he has blindly accepted this information as an act of income escaping assessment. There is no material referred to by him which can be said to have been considered by the AO so as to demonstrate that he had formed his view taking into consideration the facts. The reasons recorded shows that the AO in the facts of the present case the AO has proceeded to act on the basis of suspicions. DR was unable to show any material which could be said to have been considered before the formation of belief. The mere fact that the assessee has made investment, cannot be said to be information warranting reopening by itself. The AIR information that the assessee had made an investment could be a triggering fact for creating a suspicion which the AO was under law required to cross check from the information by way of returned income for the last few years and then he could be said to have formed a belief that such an investment could have been made or not. We find no such effort had been done we further find support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Amrik Singh [2016 (5) TMI 768 - ITAT AMRITSAR]. Reopening based on suspicions cannot be upheld the AO having failed to record the reasons for formation of his belief which only suggest that he has proceeded on surprising - Decided in favour of assessee.
|