Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 690 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reassessment after expiry of 4 years - Bogus purchases - as per assessee reassessment proceedings could be said to have been initiated mechanically on the basis of third party information - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that, the assessee was aware that the transaction with M/s. Kalyan Exports Pvt Ltd was not business transaction but in the form of bogus purchase, it was only an accommodation entries and the company was one of the beneficiaries of the transactions, despite of this, the assessee failed to disclose true and correct facts at the relevant time and therefore, the Assessing Officer is entitled to initiate reassessment proceedings on the basis of tangible material came in his hand, which stands to expose the untruthfulness of the entry of purchase made in the books of accounts. In this context, we may refer the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Dy. CIT, [2011 (7) TMI 275 - SC ORDER]wherein, it is held that assessee having not pointed out during assessment proceedings about exprenses incurred relatable to tax free income u/s. 14A, there was an omission and failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material facts, hence, reopening was justified. As examined the reasons as indicated above, and we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has verified the information and after application of mind and upon due satisfaction, he formed an opinion that income has escaped assessment. See GOKUL CERAMICS [2016 (7) TMI 214 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Eligible sanction under Section 151 - As perused the papers of the sanction which would show that Assessing Officer presented the reasons recorded for approval of Principal Commissioner in prescribed format on 29.03.2019 through Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Both the officers have perused the reasons recorded and opined that it is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner of the Income Tax has expressed his satisfaction with regard to reasons recorded by the AO and found that it is a fit case to issue notice. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was also satisfied with the reasons recorded and put his remarks of his own handwriting that “on the basis of the reasons recorded, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.” On 29.03.2019, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has expressed his opinion, whereas, on 30.03.2019, the Principal Commissioner has expressed his satisfaction with regard to reasons recorded and accord the sanction to issue the impugned notice dated 31.03.2019. Thus, the sanction for reassessment was granted on 31.03.2019 on the date on which the impugned notice was issued. In this circumstances, it is evident that before issuing the notice, there was compliance of Section 151 of the Act and the authority concerned had expressed their satisfaction with regard to reasons recorded and accordingly, accorded the sanction. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the writ applicant that sanction was not obtained before issuance of the notice cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer and that he proceeded mechanically based on the sole information and the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 147 of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
|