Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURTReopening of assessment u/s 147 - scope and effect of the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) - voluntary disclosure of untaxed income and the assessee’s acknowledging income tax liability - substantial amount of unaccounted income of promoters/directors was introduced in the closely held companies of the assessee group through Shirish Chandrakant Shah, alleged to be a Mumbai based accommodation entry provider- through Pradeep Birewar, another accommodation entry provider based at Ahmedabad - revenue was of opinion that Shirish Chandrakant Shah was providing accommodation entries, through various companies controlled and managed by him, and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the business - Whether declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation)? - HELD THAT:- The details of income declaration by Garg Logistics under the IDS scheme was submitted by Pravin. P. Agrawal (the assessee’s chairman) in support of its claim of genuineness of receipt of share capital. However, as noticed earlier, the basis for reopening the assessment in this case was the information from the material seized during search in cases of Shrish Chandrakant Shah and correlation with return of income of the assessee. Further, there was no scrutiny assessment done at the original assessment stage. As a matter of fact, M/s Garg Logistics filed its IDS application with a different Commissionerate which did not share information with the AO in the present case; he did not also call for any such information. Pravin Chandra Agrawal, the chairman of the assessee (M.R. Shah group) was queried with regard to the capital raised with high premium during a search, and post search inquiry. He submitted details of the IDS declaration by Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd to say that the amounts received toward share applications were genuine transactions. Clearly, in the present case, the High Court went wrong in holding that the department had shared confidential IDS information of Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd. AO utilized the material submitted by Pravin. P. Agrawal (the assessee’s chairman) and correlated it with the ROC data filed by the assessee. Further, it is also apparent, that the AO’s “reasons to believe” do not disclose any inquiry made in relation to Garg Logistic Pvt Ltd’s account or declaration. Information or “tangible material” which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean slate – as it were. Therefore, to hold- as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147. As long as there is objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. As noticed previously the declarant was Garg Logistic Pvt Ltd and not the assessee. Facially, Section 192 affords immunity to the declarant: “nothing contained in any declaration made under section 183 shall be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding relating to imposition of penalty” Therefore, the protection given, is to the declarant, and for a limited purpose. However, the High Court proceeded on the footing that such protection would bar the revenue from scrutinizing the assessee’s return, absolutely. Quite apart from the fact that the re-opening of assessment was not based on Garg Logistic’s declaration, the fact that such an entity owned up and paid tax and penalty on amounts which it claimed, were invested by it as share applicant, (though the share applicants were other companies and entities) to the assessee in the present case, cannot – by any rule or principle inure to the assessee’s advantage This court is, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court fell into error, in holding that the sequitur to a declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The AO is at liberty to take steps to complete the re-assessment.
|