Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 47 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening proposed after expiry of four years - Eligibility of reason to believe - HELD THAT:- As considered the reasons recorded for reopening and in our view, it does not disclose anywhere that there was failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Simply using the words, " by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment," would be of no use to respondents since it is rather obvious that it is made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to Section 147 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that there was non-disclosure on the part of petitioner. These facts have been brought to the notice of respondents by petitioner vide letter dated 10th October, 2019. Notwithstanding the same, the order on the objections dated 16th October, 2017 and impugned in the petition has been passed. Having heard the Counsels and considered the petition along with documents annexed thereto, the JAO has not verified the facts with the data available with him and simply on the basis of information received from DDIT, has issued the notice to petitioner. Therefore the condition precedent for taking action under Section 147 of the Act that mandates, it is exclusively the satisfaction of the assessing authority based on some direct, correct and relevant material has not been met. This Court in CIT vs. Shodiman Investment P. Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 1287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. As in the order disposing petitioner’s objections, Assessing Officer has relied upon various judgments of which copies have not been provided or were brought to the notice of assessee before the order on objection was passed so that assessee could have suitably dealt with those judgments/orders. Therefore, we would add that there is also breach of principles of natural justice on the part of the Assessing Officer, who as a quasi judicial authority had an obligation to adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice. In the order disposing the objections, the JAO has gone beyond the reasons recorded for reopening inasmuch as according to him no bank statements or work contract receipts were inquired or submitted during the original assessment proceedings based on which the actual amount and the nature and genuineness of the work done by assessee for SECPL could have been verified. It is settled law that reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented as held in First Source Solutions Limited [2021 (9) TMI 248 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In any event, the Assessing Officer is not correct inasmuch as petitioner, as recorded earlier, has provided the details regarding contract with SECPL. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|