Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 178 - AT - Income Tax
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee has challenged reopening of assessment on the grounds that the impugned reopening u/s 148 of the regular assessment already concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act, after the expiry of the statutory period of 4 years is illegal and bad-in-law requiring outright annulment - HELD THAT:- So far this plea of assessee we note that ld Counsel did not submit the copy of the original assessment order therefore, it can not be ascertained that assessee has submitted entire books of accounts, bills, vouchers, purchases/sales invoices, bank statements etc. for verification of assessing officer. We have examined the paper book submitted by the assessee and noticed that during the reassessment proceedings the assessee submitted, ITR copy, PAN, ledger account, VAT return and affidavit in respect of Sun Daim, Vitrag and Moulimani. We do not find any documents which were submitted during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, it seems to us that during the original assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted entire books of accounts, bills, vouchers, bank statements, purchases/sales vouchers, details of direct and indirect expenses incurred by assessee and other necessary evidences to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for making original assessment, therefore, assessee cannot take the benefit of proviso to section 147 of the Act, hence, we dismiss the ground no.1 raised by the assessee.
Whether assessment order was framed without providing opportunity to cross examine? - HELD THAT:- We find merits in the submissions of ld DR for the Revenue that assessee is doing transactions with these benami entities of Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain Group of Mumbai, they know to each other, hence opportunity to cross examine is not necessary. We also note that during the assessment stage the assessee did not ask the assessing officer to provide an opportunity for cross examination. We note that during the assessment stage assessee did not submit required details and documents and did not assist the assessing officer in making the reassessment, (vide last para of the assessment order). The ld DR also submits that “Fraud vitiates everything”, these all are associated concerns and interconnected business concerns, hence opportunity to cross examine is not necessary. Hence, we dismiss ground no.4 raised by the assessee.
Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the assessee is covered by the judgment of Pankaj K. Choudhary [2019 (8) TMI 1769 - ITAT SURAT] as held AO. did not make any inquiry on the documentary evidences filed by assessee and did not doubt the explanations. Since the documentary evidences filed on record have not been doubted by A.O. and no adverse finding have been given and no inquiry have been made into the claim of assessee, therefore, there was no basis to treat such purchases as bogus - Entire addition is wholly unjustified and even it is not a fit case where Gross Profit rate of 5% be applied for sustaining the part addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
Grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.