Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1039 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credits in the books of account of the assessee being share application money received - whether the Assessee could be stated to have disclosed fully and truly all material facts has to be examined in the light of facts of each case? - HELD THAT:- Requirement of first proviso are not met for multiple reasons namely, the allegation of failure to disclose facts of material nature is non-descript and obscure and is merely an iteration of statutory language; it is not known what primary facts of substantive nature were not 'disclosed' which were in the knowledge of the Assessee; which specific fact disclosed were found to be untrue later on. Allegation that the share application received are accommodation entries without further corroborative facts is by itself insufficient to allege the escapement in terms of first proviso. Withholding the material facts which is in the knowledge of Assessee is one of the conditions precedent to lift the embargo of limitation placed under the first proviso. Importantly, such failure of the assessee to disclose material facts contemplated in first proviso to S. 147 has to be judged in the context of proceedings of the same year i.e. AY 2009-10 and not with reference to some enquiry in subsequent AY 2010-11. Any alleged failure in some other assessment year would not meet the requirement of first proviso to S. 147 with reference to reopening of some other year. From the body of reasons recorded for AY 2009-10 in question, it can not be deciphered as to what material facts in relation to share application money were withheld by the Assessee in AY 2009-10 in question. An alleged non-compliance of summons issued in some other years cannot be reckoned as 'failure on the part of assessee' and that too in some other assessment year. An enquiry was made in relation to share application money recd. while framing regular assessment of AY 2009-10 and assessment was framed taking note of outcome of such enquiry. Hence, mere reproduction of statutory language of first proviso would not meet the requirement of law for extension of limitation period beyond 4 years. When seen holistically, the conclusion is inescapable that the AO has failed to satisfy the pre-requisites of main provision of S. 147 and also first proviso thereto. The jurisdiction assumed thus is clearly without legal foundation. The notice issued u/s 148 to reopen the completed assessment is thus without jurisdiction and consequently, the reassessment order is bad in law and thus quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
|