Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 730 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Reasons to believe - non- independent application of mind by AO/Borrowed satisfaction - as argued jurisdictional preconditions have not been fulfilled in the present case, as the belief found by the AO is based on an audit objection without fulfilling an objective criteria - HELD THAT:- As details admittedly, were made available to the AO by Petitioner itself. It is thus clear that there is no failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose fully and truly the necessary information. Department has heavily relied upon the audit objections received from its own revenue Department to justify reopening of assessment. But it is clear from the documents themselves that the AO had sought explanation from Petitioner in respect of queries raised by the audit party. Petitioner has averred that as before the Respondent No. 1 made his submissions to the revenue audit objection he called for submissions from the Petitioner - each of the said audit objections have been duly explained by the Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant through their letters dated 20.02.2018 and 01.11.2019. Petitioner understands that the then Respondent No. 1 had found the said explanation to be satisfactory and accordingly responded to the revenue audit objections. This is because from January, 2019 upto March 2021 that is for almost 26 months, no corrective steps were taken by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of any of the said items”. This has not been denied in the affidavit in reply. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that there was no failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose fully and truly the material facts, nor there was any tangible material with the AO, which could have otherwise justified the reopening of assessment by issuing the notice impugned. In the present case, the notice to reopen assessment does not even remotely make any mention of any tangible material has come to the notice of the AO after passing original assessment order to conclude that there was an escapement of assessment. The AO has failed to aver what material fact that Petitioner has failed to disclose fully and truly. It is clearly the very information which was before the AO as provided by Petitioner on the basis of which, a different view is being taken. Decided in favour of assessee.
|