Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 695 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Extension of period of limitation - unexplained share capital - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee duly filed the required information as required by Assessing Officer with respect to the query regarding share capital. There was only one query and which was duly replied and after that the Assessing Officer did not raise further query and made the assessment without making any additions on account of share capital. The query and its reply has already been made part of this order. CIT(A) in his order has held that since there was fresh material before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the extended period of six years will be applicable. However, while holding so he has not mentioned as to what is the failure on the part of the assessee in providing full and true information. In our view before coming to the second aspect of fresh material the Revenue has to establish failure on the part of the assessee to furnish full and fair disclosure which has not been done in the present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NDTV vs. DCIT [2020 (4) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT] has elaborately discussed this issue and has finally held that before coming to the second aspect of fresh material, the Revenue has to establish that there is a failure on the part of the assessee - benefit of extended period of limitation can be extended to six years under the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act only if Revenue can establish that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all primary material facts necessary for the assessment. We find that Hon'ble Court has also dealt with the explanation-1 to the said provisions of Section 147 of the Act wherein it has been stated that filing of documents and production of books of account before Assessing Officer does not necessarily amounts to disclosure within the meaning of section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while commenting on Explanation-1 has held that the duty of the assessee is to provide and file primary information and non disclosure of orther facts which may be termed as secondary facts is not necessary. In the light of the above judgment let us examine the primary documents which the assessee had filed before the Assessing Officer. As already noted in our order in the earlier part the assessee had filed during original assessment proceedings, copy of PAN card, copy of Bank Accounts of investors, acknowledgment of return of income of investors, confirmation of investment. These are all primary evidences which the assessee had filed and there was no further query from Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no failure on the part of assessee as the assessee had disclosed all the material facts which it was bound to disclose and if the Revenue wanted to further investigate the matter at that stage it could have easily directed the assessee to furnish more facts. The above documents filed during original assessment proceedings clearly contains the names, addresses, PAN numbers and copy of returns and copy of Bank account of investors and the Assessing Officer could have investigated further to examine as to whether these entities were entry providers or not. These documents also contain the fact that new shares of ₹ 10/- each were issued to new shareholders at a premium of ₹ 240/- each. The assessee during original assessment proceedings had filed copy of bank accounts of investors also and Assessing Officer could have examined bank accounts of such investors to examine as to whether any funds were rotated to make available funds in these bank accounts for making investment in the assessee’s company. Nothing has been done by Assessing Officer and now it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose full and true material facts. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|