Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 598 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus purchases - information received from the investigation wing - HELD THAT:- AO had nowhere abandoned reasons which were the foundation for issuance of the notice for re-opening. He had considered the objections of the petitioner and disposed them of on the basis of material on record. The sole ground of the petitioner therefore, must fail. See SIL GOLD, PRAKASH SACHIN & CO VERSUS ITO, WARD-53 (4) , NEW DELHI [2018 (12) TMI 1128 - ITAT DELHI] In the present case, notice for re-opening having been issued in the case of assessment which was not framed after scrutiny. AO would have considerable latitude in issuing notice for re- opening if it is found that he had tangible material to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, it would not be appropriate on our part to strike down the notice. For such reasons, the petition is dismissed On the issue of the sanctions/approval granted by the joint Commissioner of income tax, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of SONIA GANDHI, OSCAR FERNANDES, RAHUL GANDHI [2018 (9) TMI 720 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where identical satisfaction was recorded by the approving authority, the honourable Delhi High Court held that there is no error/infirmity can be pointed out.Therefore we are of the view that sanctioned by the authority for reopening of the assessment is also proper. Assessee's argument that on the date of compliance with the notice of 148 issued AO has issued the notice u/S 143 (2) of the act on the same date find no force in the argument as according to the provisions of section 143 (2), AO on receipt of return, if considers it necessary or expedient, to ensure that assessee has not understated the income or has not computed the excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner asks assessee to attend before him. In the present case the assessing officer was already having the original return of income filed by the assessee under section 139 of the act. Thus, there is no change in the facts contained in original return as well as the letter submitted by the assessee. It was merely reiteration of same facts as contained in that return. On receipt of notice under section 148 of the act the assessee has merely written a letter that original return may be considered as a return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the act. Therefore, the original return was already available with the revenue/assessing officer Evidences were so clinching in the form of statement of the entry operator, statement of the supplier of the invoice and the inquiries conducted by the income tax department clearly proved that assessee has obtained an accommodation entry. It cannot be said that if the notice has been issued by the assessing officer on the same date on which return of income has been filed/or the return originally filed is intimated to be return in response to notice under section 148 of the act, the assessing officer cannot apply his mind immediately. According to us , he can. There is no minimum threshold or gap of time prescribed under section 143 (2) of the act. Therefore, putting an artificial time break between the time of intimation of the return filed by the assessee and notice to be issued by the assessing officer would be unreasonably putting a burden on the revenue. In view of this, we dismiss this argument of the AR. Bogus purchases assessee has merely procured bill without the goods supplied by the seller and booked in its purchase account. Sales made by the assessee are not disputed. The assessee has submitted the copies of the invoices, copies of the purchase register, copies of the balance sheet trading account and profit and loss account for the year ended on 31st of March for respective years. Identical issue arose in case of SIL gold [2018 (12) TMI 1128 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the addition was sustained only to the extent of 2% of the purchase being the commission paid to the entry operator. In the present case we direct the assessing officer to confirm the addition to the extent of 2% of the purchase amount involved in the alleged accommodation entry obtained by the assessee and further addition of 5 % to the extent of investment in goods procured by the assessee which has been sold. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the balance addition. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|