TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting that necessary particulars pertaining to his income were not disclosed by the assessee and thereby substantial income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment." The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has regarding asst. yr. 1983-84 (ITA No. 1022 (Jp) of 1993) contended that the AO got information from anti-corruption department and on that basis he formed his belief that taxable income has escaped assessment. He has contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) has observed in his impugned order that the facts were already disclosed, but it is not known as to before whom the same were disclosed. He has known as to before whom the same were disclosed. He has referred to para 4 on p. 2 of Dy. CIT(A)'s order and. contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) could, in the circumstances, have set aside the assessment orders and restored the matter to AO. He has contended that the Dy. CIT(A) has not examined quantum and has straightaway cancelled the assessments. He has contended that sufficiency/adequacy of reasons cannot be adjudged by Dy. CIT(A). 5. Regarding asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1988-89 he has further contended that on issuance of notice under s. 148, the belated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that this is a material fact under s. 147. He has contended that the information given on p. 4 of P.B. doe not give sufficient particulars. He has contended that in these cases, by figures of subsequent assessments, it is proved that there had been escapement of income. He has contended that in asst. yr. 1983-84, it is only after receipt of information from ACD that the notice under s. 148 was given. 9. We have considered the rival contentions as also the materials on record. 10. First we take up asst. yr. 1983-84. For this assessment year return of income was not filed and the income as shown in annexures of asst. yr. 1984-85 was at Rs. 14,520, that is below taxable limit. The assessee's assessed income under s. 147, is however Rs. 56,210. Obviously there has been an escapement of income. As the assessee had not filed the return (for asst. yr. 1983-84) and the Department had received the information from ACD that the assessee had purchased a number of plots and had made huge investments in construction, which was general though, but coupled with the subsequent factum/quantum of assessed income may, in the peculiar fact-situation of this case in particular, well const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1984-85 5,500 (18,000- Estimate 12,000 12,000 Non- 5,500) (C.C.) acceptance- =12,500 of C.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985-86 6,500 (20,000- " 25,000 25,000 " 6,500) (C.C.) =13,500 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1986-87 8,800 (34,000- " 20,000 20,000 " 8,800) (C.C.) =25,200 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1988-89 13,300 (35,000- " 14,000 14,000 " 13,300 (C.C.) =21,700 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Others --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of addition Declared in Amount Basis of additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is quite vague and general and not specific. This, viewed in the context of the nature of additions made by AO as detailed in the table given above for these three asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87, the only conclusion that one as a man of ordinary prudence, can justifiably make is that there seem to be in fact no reasons before AO to come to a belief of escapement of income in these years. We are consciously aware of the legal position that the "sufficiency of reasons" of belief is not justifiable but quite distinct therefrom though with a thin difference, is the "existence of reasons" for entertaining the belief of escapement of income and the Court/Tribunal is expected and is rather duty-bound to look into this aspect so as to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the preconditions requisite for the AO to invoke/exercise jurisdiction under s. 147/148 existed or not. The expression "reason to believe" in this regard, does not mean merely reason to suspect but something more than that. The expression, in its true legislative spirit, would imply existence of such facts/material on record as would reasonably lead a rational person, or a person of reasonable/ordinary prudence to ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on account of non-acceptance of cash credit as genuine. An addition of Rs. 4,000 is on account of registration expenses but the purchase of plot and the source of its purchase money already stood mentioned in the cash flow statement and statement of affairs. Addition of Rs. 6,620 is due to excess of expenditure over earned income as shown, and the figure of expenditure got swollen due to estimate of household expenses at Rs. 22,000 as against Rs. 11,043 shown by assessee. The last addition is of Rs. 8,955 made on account of accrued interest due to disallowance of assessee's claim for deduction of the same. Thus the addition, discussed as above, are emanating from information, no other than that disclosed by assessee himself in his return and annexures thereto without any new/fresh information. As such the position of this assessment year too is, in no way, different from that of the other three assessment years as discussed and concluded just above. In that view of the matter we find the impugned order of learned CIT(A) holding the issuance of notice under s. 148 for asst. yr. 1988-89 as invalid/void ad initio and in consequence cancelling the reassessment made under s. 147/148 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
