Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1368 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained gift receipt - “reason to suspect” or “reasons to believe” - assessee declared the gift received from his real brother in the statement - HELD THAT:- With respectful observation of the apex court that the vague reason should not be accepted. But the reason recorded by the ld. AO is not factually incorrect. The recent judgment of LaljibhaiKanjibhaiMandalia [2022 (7) TMI 639 - SUPREME COURT] held that formation of opinion and the reasons to believe recorded is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function but administrative in character.The information must be in possession of the authorised official on the basis of the material and that the formation of opinion must be honest and bona fide. It cannot be merely pretence. Consideration of any extraneous or irrelevant material would vitiate the belief/satisfaction. The authority must have information in its possession on the basis of which a reasonable belief can be founded that the person concerned has omitted or failed to produce books of accounts or other documents for production of which summons or notice had been issued, or such person will not produce such books of account or other documents even if summons or notice is issued to him - Reasons forming part of the satisfaction note are to satisfy the judicial consciousness of the Court and any part of such satisfaction note is not to be made part of the order. The question as to whether such reasons are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a writ petition. The sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue. The relevance of the reasons for the formation of the belief is to be tested by the judicial restraint as in administrative action as the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court shall not examine the sufficiency or adequacy thereof. Thus we find that no infirmity in the processing of reopening u/s 148 and in the order of the ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act. The issue was properly discussed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The Ground No.1, of the assessee rejected.
|