Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 548 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit - reasons to believe - information received from Revenue Intelligence Authority (DRI) - Held that:- In the instant case, the information is specific having detail of value of the amount of accommodation entry taken, the instrument and date through which entry was taken, name and account number of the entry provider were available before the AO and thus we cannot hold the information was vague. Further, in the case of PCIT Vs Paramount Communication Private Limited [2017 (7) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT], after considering various decisions held that the information received from Revenue Intelligence Authority constitute a tangible material and, thus, assessment was reopened validly. In the instant case before us, the information has been received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) after carrying out detailed enquiries from the accommodation entry providers. As held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.[1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] the sufficiency or correctness of the information is not to be seen at the stage of the reopening of the assessment. In our opinion, the reassessment proceeding is a kind of enquiry, where the assessee is granted opportunity to explain his stand on the correctness of reasons to believe escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer is not empowered in law to carry out any enquiry, if no assessment proceeding are pending. The reassessment proceedings thus, empower the Assessing Officer to verify correctness of the information. In the case of Ankit Financial Services Ltd.[2017 (1) TMI 1041 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] material indicating that assessee has received bogus share application through accommodation entry is one of the beneficiary, was recovered in the search of another person. In such circumstances, the initiation of reopening was justified. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that reassessment proceeding are invalid. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of holding the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid. - Decided in favour of revenue
|