TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation wing, he would have immediately noticed that material referred would suggest cash payment to AD and not AB&D i.e. the present petitioner. Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that may have been supplied to him. In fact, we note that in the present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a wrong person. The impugned notice is, therefore, set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee - WRIT PETITION NO. 14490 OF 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R AND DEVELOPER PAN : AANFA3072H appears as one of these entities and is JV PARTNER in the development and construction of '4D SQUARE'. A cash amount of ₹ 3,54,82,000/was paid to M/s. Akshar Builder and Developers on different dates. The ledger account retrieved from the disks of the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 showing cash entries paid to M/s. Akshar Builders and Developers along with other information is forwarded to the undersigned. 4. Specific information has been passed in the case of M/s. Akshar Builders and Developers regarding cash payments made by M/s. Mudra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad to M/s. Akshar Builders and Developers. The assessee firm M/s. Akshar Builders and Developers has filed Nil return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961. 8. In this case, since more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, hence necessary sanction to initiate proceedings u/s 147 and to issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act may be accorded as per provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner filed objections to the notice of reopening under communication dated 28th November, 2018. Such objections were however rejected by the Assessing Officer by order dated 14th December, 2018. 3. The petitioner is a partnership firm, Akshar Builders and Developers ( AB D for short). For Assessment Year 201112, the petitioner had filed its return of income which was accepted under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not framed after scrutiny. The Assessing Officer therefore would have much wider scope to reopen the assessment. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 500 . Counsel submitted that at this stage the sufficiency of material enabling the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment would not be subject matter of scrutiny by the Court. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material at his command to form a belief that income of the present petitioner chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. Since the factum of reassessment order in case of Mudra is not part of the present proceedings, we may keep the same out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the information submitted to him by the investigation wing that there is material to suggest that Mudra had paid cash amount to AB D whereas, the material collected during the survey against Mudra prima faice suggests such cash payment to AD. This would demonstrate total lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. If he had perused the material supplied to him by the investigation wing, he would have immediately noticed that material referred would suggest cash payment to AD and not AB D i.e. the present petitioner. 7. Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
