Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 728 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion - escapement of income premised on the lack of creditworthiness of JMPL and the consequent sham nature of the loan transaction was enquired into by the AO on as many as four occasions - As argued jurisdictional condition to reopen the assessment is not fulfilled as no income escaped assessment on account of failure to make a true and full disclosure of the material relevant for the assessment, on the part of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The information solicited by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143 of the Act, Mr. Mistri would urge, there is no room to allege that the income escaped assessment on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the relevant material. We are persuaded to hold that, in the facts of the case, the submission appears impeccable. Indisputably, the petitioner had disclosed the unsecured loan transaction of ₹ 75 Lakhs availed from JMPL. The petitioner had availed loan from multiple entities. This propelled the Assessing Officer to seek details of unsecured loans/deposits in a prescribed format. Not only the information was furnished by the petitioner but all the supporting documents were submitted. It can hardly be gainsaid that all the primary facts were placed before the Assessing Officer by the petitioner. Respondents made an endeavour to draw home the point that though the information and documents were furnished, yet the petitioner did not disclose all the relevant information. The genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor could not be ascertained at that point of time, on account of non-disclosure of the relevant facts. The submission of Mr. Suresh Kumar that the information and documents so furnished did not equip the Assessing Officer to draw inference about the non-genuineness of the transaction and question the creditworthiness of the creditor, cuts the revenue's case in two ways. First, it implies an admission that all the primary facts were placed before the Assessing Officer. Second, the revenue's stand becomes vulnerable to the charge of change of opinion. The fact that in the assessment order under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer did not explicitly advert to the questions of non-genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor does not carry the case of the revenue any further. What matters is the consideration of the issues at that point of time. Once the queries were raised and information solicited, an inference follows that the Assessing Officer considered those issues. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner that proposed reopening of the assessment suffers from the vice of 'change of opinion' also appears well founded. Evidently, the search action under section 132 of the Act, did not reveal any tangible material qua the transaction of unsecured loan from JMPL. In fact, the petitioner was called upon to explain the very transaction, in respect of which, during the course of scrutiny assessment, the then Assessing Officer had already solicited information and documents. Eventually, during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer having been satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, did not make any addition. In the course of the proceedings under section 153A also, the revenue did not claim that any incriminating material was found qua the transaction with JMPL. In this view of the matter, the reopening of the assessment on the premise that the creditor lacked the creditworthiness and thus the loan transaction was sham, is nothing but a change of opinion. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the jurisdictional condition to reopen the assessment is not made out. In any event, the exercise falls in the realm of 'change of opinion' with regard to the very same material. The petition, thus, deserves to be allowed.
|