9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue in this appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under Section 147/148 of the Act was bad in law? 3. The admitted fact is that the Assessee filed its return of income for the AY in question on 31st October, 2004 declaring an income of Rs. 4,38,958. An intimation was sent under Section 143(1) of the Act. In other words the return was not processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued by the AO to the Assessee on 25th March, 2011. The following reasons for the reopening were furnished to the Assessee for reopening the assessment: 11 Reasons for the belief that Information has been received from the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the income chargeable to tax to the extent of accommodation entry of Rs. 1,56,00,000 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of I.T. Act. 1961. To bring to tax the income which has escaped assessment, I proposed to issue notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 1961. Since, four years has expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, and no scrutiny assessment was completed under Section 143(3) in this case for the said assessment year, the reasons recorded above for the purpose of reopening of assessment is put up kind satisfaction of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-14, New Delhi in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch sum in the aggregate works out to Rs. 78 lakhs. 8. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relied on the decisions in Income-Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 and ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 to urge that at the stage of reopening of the assessment, the AO is not expected to undertake any detailed inquiry; it was sufficient if on the basis of the information received he was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for reopening the assessment as income had escaped assessment. 9. However, in neither of the above cases are the facts similar to those in the present case. The two glaring errors in the reasons in the present case are, in fact, unusua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In fact he proceeded on two wrong premises - one regarding alleged non-filing of the return and the other regarding the extent of the so-called accommodation entries. 12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA No.692/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the reopening of the assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries provided by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
