Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 283 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The instant case being covered by 1st proviso to Section 147 could be reopened only when twin conditions co-exist namely, (i) the Assessing Officer holds reasons to believe about the escapement of chargeable income (which is not found to be satisfied as deliberated in the preceding paragraph); (ii) the escapement is due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. As a logical corollary, the burden is on the Assessing Officer to form a prima facie opinion that the conditions embedded in first proviso is also found scrupulously satisfied when the same is challenged. Allegation of the Assessing Officer on the failure of assessee is therefore a first step to enable to the Assessing Officer to invoke proviso. Noticeably , the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer does not even allege any such failure in express terms. It is not known what fact giving perception of accommodation entries has not been fully disclosed. It is further not known as to which fact has not been truly disclosed which the Assessee was found privy to. AO appears to have drawn adverse inference which is not intelligible in the absence of any basic inquiry on the information in the peculiar facts of the present case. The stringent conditions of 1st proviso to Section 147 is thus not satisfied. Hence seen from any angle, we do not see any error per se in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) to uphold the plea of the assessee towards lack of jurisdiction. Hence, Ground No. 1 of the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) has also found total lack of merit in the impugned additions. The CIT(A) has observed that the transactions with Natwest Trade Link were offered as part of the turnover/sale, whereas the addition has been made under Section 68 of the Act without reducing the corresponding sales. Such an act of the Assessing Officer tantamount to double addition; one under the head 'turnover' and other under Section 68 of the Act. Such course of action is manifestly unsustainable and cannot be countenanced in law. Without reiterating each observations of the CIT(A), we find sound rationale in the discourse adopted by the first appeal on merits in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A). We thus decline to interfere. Appeal of revenue dismissed.
|