TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to probe whether any income had escaped assessment when the original returns were accepted or merely framed under Section 143(1) - as it so happened in this case. AO cannot be expected to conduct a mini-investigation or assessment during the course of ascertaining whether the re-assessment notice needs to be gone further into. On the basis of these parameters of what he is expected to do, the Court is of the opinion that at least in this case the AO confined himself to the jurisdiction conferred. Furthermore, the aspects on which the re-assessment has been ordered were concededly not gone into since assessment was merely framed with an intimation under Section 143(1), which does not even amount to an assessment order in law as held by De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue which appears on advance notice has produced the relevant record. According to the original files, the investigation report dated 27.02.2018 was received by the concerned Commissionerate of Sikkim and was later transmitted to the concerned official of Delhi on 27.03.2018. The AO appears to have ascertained from the electronic records with respect to the correctness of the shared transactions concerning three entities and concluded that reassessment was warranted. The reasons to believe in support of the impugned notice, reads as follows: In this case the information has been received through e-mail from the ACIT(Hqrs.)(Coord.) II, New Delhi stated that Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata received data from PMO d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR for A.Y.2011-12. No scrutiny assessment has taken place in the case of assessee for the relevant year. 3. In the present case, the undersigned has information as well as reason to believe that the income for A.Y. 2011-12 has escaped assessment as the assessee has not declared any investment or capital gain/loss in his ITR for A.Y.2011-12 with respect to the aforesaid transactions amounting to ₹ 9,62,696.12/-. On believing the reason/information received from DIT (INV) Kolkata as discussed above. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for reopening u/s 148. The petitioner s reply upon being served with the reasons supporting the re-assessment inter alia states as follows: As reported by your Honour, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, the extent of investment that the petitioner had made. The reply of the assessee in this case, we notice whether it is categorical or otherwise, is unsupported by any document or statement, containing the investments made or copies of the investment account or the shares and securities purchased and traded in. The assessee was afforded an opportunity to provide this but chose not to provide the materials, other than denying the transactions altogether. In these circumstances, laying the blame on the door of the AO and characterizing the re-assessment as illegal, in the opinion of this Court is not accurate. The primary task of the AO is to probe whether any income had escaped assessment when the original returns were accepted or mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
