Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 658 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reliance on material obtained in the course of a search or a survey - as argued notice had been issued after 01.04.2021 though relating to an assessment year prior to 01.04.2021, requiring adherence to the new scheme of re-assessment u/s 148A - Whether condition set out under Section 149(1)(b) satisfied ? - HELD THAT:- Challenge to jurisdiction in this case cannot be sustained. As regards the first objection, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued two Circulars, one dated 10.12.2021 and the second dated 13.12.2021 that deal with the e-Verification Scheme, 2021 as well as provides information on the implementation of Risk Management Strategy. On a combined reading of the above two Circulars, there can be no fetters placed on the powers of an Assessing Authority to gather information on the basis of which proceedings for reassessment may be initiated. In fact, in the celebrated case of Pooran Mal Vs the Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi and Ors. [1973 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the position that material obtained in the course of a search or a survey that might itself not confirm to the parameters of a legally conducted search, would still qualify as information that may be used by an Authority in the course of assessment. No doubt, the provisions of Section 148A does not contain such an expanded description of the sources that remain limited to those mentioned therein, including Foreign Tax and Tax Research (FT & TR) references. In addition, the Department has set up a specific post designated as Director of Income Tax (Investigation and Criminal Intelligence), with a team of officers, to probe and locate instances of evasion of tax/avoidance of tax for appropriate action. We find no merit in the submission of the petitioner to the effect that the information available with the officer is vague, non-specific or does not relate to the Risk Management Strategy of the Department. The term 'Risk Management Strategy' is merely a phrase connoting an evolving strategy developed by the Income Tax Department to address and cover all resources from where information may be collated and there must be no limitation placed on one’s understanding of this concept. In fact, the officer has, in the reasons, clearly referred to information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation and Criminal Intelligence) and for the purposes of Section 148A, this would suffice. A perusal of the reasons indicates that, prima facie, the condition set out under Section 149(1)(b) is satisfied insofar as the income chargeable to tax that is represented in the form of the movable property transferred by the petitioner far in excess of the required amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Grant of sanction in terms of Section 151 - petitioner submits that there has been no sanction accorded as statutorily required. However, upon a perusal of the impugned notice u/s148 we find that sanction has been duly obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/R2 and thus, this argument fails. No infirmity is pointed out in the sanction as accorded. Thus the challenge to the re-assessment proceedings is rejected. The re-assessment will now proceed on the merits of the matter, in accordance with law.
|