TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 determining the appellant's income to ₹ 72.65 Lakhs. This would indicate that there is clear change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer in issuing the impugned notice. Moreover, the reasons recorded indicate that the material obtained from the Additional DIT, Jaipur was to the effect that the respondent assessee had not explained the source of its capital contribution to the extent of ₹ 6.20 Crores. This, the Tribunal found was factually incorrect as a report of the Additional DIT, Jaipur makes no mention of any explanation offered by the respondent assessee but the entire report is on the statement made by an individual and refers to his conduct. Consequently, the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Beer business as per the license issued by Government of Rajasthan for different districts. The respondent assessee in its return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 declared an income of ₹ 60 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 27 February 2006 determining the respondent assessee's total income of ₹ 72.65 Lakhs. 4. On 30 December 2008, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 147/148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The grounds recorded in support of the notice dated 30 December 2008 for reopening the assessment are as under: The above assessee Shri Jagnandan Singh Party, (AOP, C/o Blu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited with the Excise Department. 5. The respondentassessee objected to the same. The objection was two fold - change of opinion and no reason to believe income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However the Assessing Officer rejected the objections and passed the assessment order dated 24 December 2009 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Act determining the income at ₹ 6.92 Crores. 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 'CIT(A)'). By order dated 27 September 2010 the CIT (A) dismissed the respondent assessee's appeal and held that the reopening of assessment was valid. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, but the failure is of an individual to explain his source of deposit. Moreover, the Tribunal records the fact that the deposit made with the State of Rajasthan was in February 2002 i.e. much before the respondent assessee came into existence in April 2002. Thus, the impugned order records that the reasons recorded do not provide the link between the information obtained and the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In these circumstances, the appeal of the respondent assessee was allowed by holding that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a notice for reopening the assessment. 7. Mr. Malhotra, the learned Counsel appearing for revenue urges that the impugned order has completely ignore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement made by an individual and refers to his conduct. Consequently, the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice proceed on factually erroneous basis with the result that the live link necessary to be provided between the tangible material and the conclusion that income has escaped assessment is not found in the present case. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal is a well reasoned order and the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible and a reasonable view on the facts as existing before it. 9. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
