9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring total loss of Rs. 92,92,03,429/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and subsequently, the Assessing Officer framed assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on 16.12.2009 whereby he assessed the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,75,39,35,864/- as against the total loss of Rs. 92,92,03,429/- as per the return income. Accordingly, the assessee was held liable to pay tax of Rs. 78,38,78,939/-. Subsequently, by the impugned notice dated 24.3.2014 issued under section 148 of the Act the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee by a letter dated 9.6.2014, requested the respondent to provide a copy of the reasons which came to be furnished by a letter dated 8.7.2014. Upon receipt of the reasons for reopening, the assessee raised its objections vide letter dated 21.1.2015 and requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings. By an order dated 16.2.2015, the respondent rejected the said objections. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. S. N. Sopar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and that the Assessing Officer was, therefore, justified in invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the decision of this court in the case of Ashwin Khimchand Jhakaria v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Taxation-II, (2014) 49 taxmannn.com 105 (Gujarat), wherein the court has reiterated that it has been held by various courts, including the Supreme Court time and again that notice for reopening must be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Through an affidavit-in-reply, he cannot improve upon such reasons. On facts, the court held that in that view of the matter, the attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to contend through an order disposing of objections of the petitioner and his affidavit-in-reply that the assessee having failed to supply full details of the sale and purchase of shares, reopening beyond the period of four years would be permissible, must fail. Reference was also made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, (2015) 57 taxmann.com 355 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2007-08, which read thus :- "In this case, information has been received from the office of the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-II(2), Ahmedabad vide the letter No.DDIT(Inv.) Unit-II(2)/FIU-IND/1/2013-14 dated 10.02.2014 wherein report on suspicious transaction attempted to be made by Mehta Group of individual entities - (FIU-NID U.P. No.1000002025 to 2029(1) dated 19.12.2007 is mentioned. It has been noticed that the during the period April 2006 to November 2006 there was large cash turn over in the five bank accounts with Standard Chartered Bank, Santa Cruz branch, Mumbai of the five parties I.e. (i) M/s. Benmos Commodities (I) Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s. IPOG International Limited (iii) M/s. Krishna Trading (iv) M/s. Sai Enterprise and (v) M/s. Laxmi Enterprise. Credits to the tune of Rs. 101.05 Crore were received through RTGS and by way of clearing cheques deposited in the accounts which was followed by cash withdrawals to the tune of approximately 90% of the total credits in the accounts aggregating Rs. 94.75 Crore took place in the same period. M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, Ahmeda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scaped assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are required to be viewed in the light of the above statutory provision. From the reasons recorded, it is evident that what has been stated therein is that certain information has been received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding suspicious transactions attempted to be made by Mehta Group of individual entities. It is further recorded that during the period between April 2006 and November, 2006 there were large cash turnovers in five bank accounts of the five parties named therein and that credit to the tune of Rs. 101.05 crores were received through RTGS and by way of clearing cheques deposited in the account, which was followed by cash withdrawals etc. It is further alleged that the petitioner is an associate of two of the five parties and that the petitioner has entered into substantial cash transactions whereby withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 2,54,00,000/- have been made from the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee company has not given any proper justification for such large cash withdrawals and its utilisation to the Deputy Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
