TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-10. Had this been a mere typographical error so treated by the Assessing Officer, we would have considered the question whether a mere typographical error could invalidate otherwise valid proceedings. However, even the Assessing Officer has not treated the impugned notice as to referring to the assessment year 2009-10 wrongly typed as assessment year 2008-09. He has all along acted as if through the impugned notice, the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 having been reopened. Whatever doubt one may have would disappear when one refers to multiple notices that the Assessing Officer issued to the assessee for supplying documents pertaining to the said assessment year and the final order of assessment that he passed. The Assessing Officer made multiple additions in the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 which obviously he could not have done had he treated the notice for reopening as relatable to the assessment year 2009-10. Thus inescapable conclusion that one would reach is that the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09, was based on completely wrong reasons. In other words, reasons lacked validity. When the notice itself was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on being supplied with such reasons, the petitioner raised brief objections before the Assessing Officer under a letter written on or around 21.03.2016 conveying the following. We would like to bring it to your kind attention that the assessee has not received any amount in relation to share capital from entites managed by Shri Pratik R. Shah. As a proof of the same we hereby attach all the bank statements of the assessee along with the Share Capital Account of the assessee. Major Share capital is received by the assessee from relatives or other companies. There is no receipt of ₹ 20,00,000/- for Share Capital from entities managed by Shri Pratik R. Shah. Hence we request your honour to kindly drop the proceedings as the reasons recorded are incorrect. Alongwith such letter, the petitioner had also supplied a copy of its share capital account to demonstrate that the company had not received the amount of ₹ 20 lakhs by way of share capital from any of the entities managed by Shri Pratik R. Shah as was referred to in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. 4. Such objection however met with a reply from the Assessing Officer under letter dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed without scrutiny. To the question of the company having received share capital money of ₹ 20 lakhs from Shri Pratik R. Shah managed or controlled companies, counsel stated under the instructions that there was sufficient material on record in the form of investigation report and other connected documents to establish this fact for the financial year 2008-09 i.e. the assessment year 2009-10. Apparently, due to oversight or a mistake which can be stated to be a typographical error, the notice for reopening came to be issued for the present assessment year 2008-09, instead of the assessment year relevant to the financial year 2008-09. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we may recall that the return filed by the petitioner was originally accepted without scrutiny. In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer would have greater latitude to reopen the assessment since the principle of change of opinion would not apply. However, even in such a situation, the requirement of the Assessing Officer forming a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, before assessment can be validly reopen, is not don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement without any supporting documents. In absence of supporting evidence, the legitimacy of the submission cannot be accepted. Thus, though the Assessing Officer had an opportunity at this stage to verify the contention of the petitioner which went to the root of the matter, he skirted the issue by taking a stand that in absence of full evidences, it is not possible to accept such a contention at this stage. Had the Assessing Officer been more proactive, he would have realized that issuing notice for the assessment year 2008-09 was a sheer mistake. The department had its command material to reopen the assessment of the petitioner pertaining to the financial year 2008-09 and that therefore, notice for reopening should have been issued for the assessment year 2009-10. Instead, he adopted a rather rigid stand of not recalling a notice which was already issued, though, for the wrong year. Be that as it may, these aspects become further clear when we peruse the order of assessment, in which, after referring to the background of the case, and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer straightaway added a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs to the total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
