Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 292 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - reliance on subsequent decision of Supreme Court - deemed dividend addition under Section 2(22)(e) - notice issued beyond a period of four years - Held that:- Notice for reopening of the assessment having been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts becomes relevant. As noted, in this context, the Revenue’s stand is that the assessee did not disclose its share holding pattern only upon which it could have been ascertained whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had applicability or not. The onus is on the part of the assessee to disclose primary facts. What would be the effect of these primary facts is for the Assessing Officer to judge. The assessee having made disclosures about the borrowings from J.P. Infrastructure and also having filed necessary details thereof along with the audited return, did not thereafter have the onus of further disclosing its share holding pattern to enable the Assessing Officer to examine the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. If the Assessing Officer desired to scrutinize this aspect of the matter it was always open for him to call upon the assessee to provide for such details as and when necessary. Revenue heavily relies on the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Gopal and Sons (2017 (1) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT) which was delivered long after the assessee filed its return; the original assessment was completed and the Assessing Officer issued the notice for reopening of assessment by recording reasons. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee therefore had the benefit of the judgement of the Supreme Court to guide in the context of either making necessary disclosures, in assessing the assessee’s income or to reopen the assessment. Our High Court in case of Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. (2008 (6) TMI 193 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) had held that notice for reassessment beyond a period of four years based on subsequent decision of Supreme Court was not valid.In the result, only on this ground, the impugned notice is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|