2025 (7) TMI 1176 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - survey conducted in Jammu Kashmir Bank u/s. 133A and only because the petitioner assessee has transacted with the said bank made a total of transaction of inward and outward remittance thus concluded that the income has escaped the assessment - material in form of Survey report of the Jammu Kashmir Bank that there was a mismatch of the remittance amount as the bank has calculated two remittance amount one on the notional basis and other on the actual realization basis and it is not known as to which amount is taken for accounting purpose by the assessee - delayed filling of SLP HC 2024 (5) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT when the Jammu Kashmir Bank has clearly stated in the reply that there are two different entries captured in the statement of account and remittance sheet have two different types of rate one is notional and one is actually realized and statement of account submitted to the petitioner the same is duly recorded in the books of accounts reflecting the actual realized rate of foreign exchange. In such circumstances on application of the basic accounting principles when the petitioner has produced all the material before the assessing officer during the course of the regular assessment AO could not have formed a prima facie belief that there is escapement of income in view of the material available on record in form of details of bank accounts along with the bank statement HELD THAT - There is inordinate delay of 198 days and 79 days in filing/refiling respectively the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition of the Revenue dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.

Summary

The Supreme Court, through Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to an "inordinate delay of 198 days and 79 days" in filing and refiling, which was "not satisfactorily explained." Additionally, the Court found "no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court." The petition was dismissed both "on the ground of delay as well as merits," and all pending applications were disposed of.