Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 180 - HC - Income TaxRe-opening of the assessment / re-assessment u/s 147 - Whether assessment proceedings could not be re-opened after 6 years and that too without any justification and sought for dropping of the proceedings? - HELD THAT:- Information received from the Investigating Wing cannot be denied and they are prepared after conducting search and seizure operation, inquiry, recording of the statements and collection of evidence. The expression ‘reason to believe’ occurring in Section 147 would mean and include justification for such re-opening and when the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be safely inferred that he is said to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Finality to the ascertainment cannot be attached at this stage. When there is relevant material on which a person of reasonable prudence would have formed the belief of such escapement, it would suffice and in the instant case, the above material is sufficient enough to arrive at such a conclusion. The sufficiency of the material would be good enough for the authority to clutch the jurisdiction for commencement of reassessment proceedings. However, the sufficiency or correctness of the material would not be in the realm of consideration at this stage. Where the AO has reason to believe and there is prima facie material for commencement of re-assessment proceeding, sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at that stage and the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning recorded for re-opening of the assessment would not be in the realm of adjudication by going into merits of the said reasoning. If such reasons are not perverse and there being not mere change of opinion and there being sufficient material or reason to believe there is escapement of income to tax it would suffice for the authorities to proceed to re-open the assessment subject to other prescribed criteria also being satisfied. The borrowed opinion also being conspicuously absent in the instant case subsequent events also disclosing certain transactions attributable to the assessee having been unearthed during the course of search proceedings and the statement of the assessee himself disclosing the admission with regard to the said transaction, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioner / assessee that such commencement of re-assessment proceeding is without jurisdiction or jurisdictional error having been committed by the authorities. We are of the clear opinion that this is not a case in which we may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction nor a case is made out by the petitioner for this Court to exercise such extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, we refrain to do so. Yet, another reason for us not to exercise the discretion is that under the scheme of the Act, petitioner has very much the remedy by way efficacious redressal mechanism under various provisions of the Act available and as such when petitioner is not left remediless, at this stage of proceedings, to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction would not be just and proper. At various stages, petitioner is permitted to avail alternative statutory remedies after ultimate analysis or conclusion being arrived at by an authority. At this stage, we may not assume anything and petitioner being not remediless, we are not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. The judgment which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are no-doubt projecting the salutary principles, but the background of this peculiar facts and the material and discussion which we have made in earlier paragraphs of this very order, we are of the opinion that no decision may be applied as a straitjacket formula as it reflects distinguishable circumstance as well and as such, based upon the sound principle of law on the precedent, we are of the view that decisions cited by learned counsel are of no assistance to their propositions. We are of the view that decisions in the case of Balbir Singh Maini [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT], in the case of Ami Ashish Shah [2021 (3) TMI 1174 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and decision [2017 (3) TMI 114 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] dated 15.2.2017 delivered in Special Civil Application No.21691 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No.21741 of 2016 relied upon would not be applicable, since facts on hand and the detailed analysis by the competent authority altogether project a different fact situation. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions and they are liable to be dismissed for the reasons aforestated and accordingly, they stand dismissed. Rule is discharged.
|