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 1421 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - recording reasons beyond four years - Addition u/s 68 - material seized during the search and seizure operation on Shri S.K. Jain and his brothers - HELD THAT:- As in the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of BPTP Ltd [2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as been held that the recorded reasons except of using the expression ‘failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts’ do not specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee. In the cases when the AO intends to initiate reassessment proceedings beyond a period of four years, but, before expiry of six years from the date of issuance of notice, then, the proviso to section 147 of the Act comes into play and the AO is bound to follow the same as per the mandate of the provision. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the rider set up by the proviso to section 147 of the Act. If this condition precedent is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action u/s 147 of the Act can be initiated against the assessee for reassessment proceedings. Reasons supplied to the Petitioners, does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the rider against taking action u/s 147 of the Act after a lapse of four years remains unfulfilled and unsatisfied and in absence of any allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, any action taken by the AO u/s 147 of the Act beyond the period of four years would be without assumption of valid jurisdiction. Therefore, respectfully following the proposition rendered in the case of BPTP Ltd. (2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT), in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Anand Developers (2020 (2) TMI 995 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act based on the reasons recorded and the consequent reassessment are without jurisdiction as no action u/s 147 of the Act could be taken beyond the period four years in absence of compliance of proviso to section 147 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
|