TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, lack of true disclosures is writ large on the face of the reasons. Mere non recitation of such expression would not invalidate the reasons or the fact that the reasons are based on allegations of lack of true and full particulars. AO had issued notice to Prabhav Industries under Section 133(6) of the Act which was replied and had not remained unreplied as suggested in the reasons. Firstly, this aspect has emerged in the rejoinder. Secondly, at this stage, in a writ jurisdiction, we would not entertain such disputed question since it is well settled that sufficiency of the reasons at the end of the Assessing Officer to form a belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment would not be within the purview of examination of writ court at this stage. - WRIT PETITION NO. 3656 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI S.C. GUPTE, JJ. Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Mr. Vagish Mishra, Mr. Samir Singh Mr. Siddesh Rajput i/by Law Counsellors for the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 P.C.: 1. Petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening of assessment dated 28th/29th March, 2 seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions:- i. The reasons do not demonstrate any live link between the material available with the Assessing Officer and his formation of belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; ii. The entire issue on which reopening of assessment is sought, was minutely examined by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment. The impugned notice, is thus, based on change of opinion; iii. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The reasons also do not suggest any such failure. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Department submitted that the Assessing Officer had recorded proper reasons for issuing such notice. After the assessment was completed, the Assessing Officer received information prima facie suggesting that the petitioner had not made true disclosures. He had also issued inquiry notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties. On the basis of such materials, he formed an independent belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant assessment year, the question of true and full disclosure by the assessee would also be an additional factor. However, when the Revenue suggests that the assessee had indulged in the bogus accommodation entries and therefore, said amount of ₹ 3 crore was nothing but the assessee's unexplained cash credit, the issue of change of opinion and true and full disclosure would merge almost to the extent of overlapping. In other words, if the Revenue can prima facie show on the basis of additional material available with the Assessing Officer after completing the scrutiny assessment that the assessee had made a bogus claim, merely because the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer, would not preclude him from reopening the assessment. Reference in this context can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Anr. Vs. I.T.O. (1993) 4 SCC 77. It is a case in which during the original scrutiny assessment, the question of transaction of loan given by the assessee was examined. Later on, however, the Assessing Officer received information suggesting that the entire transaction was bogus. When the question of validity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The High Courts which have interpreted Burlop Dealer's case (Supra) as laying down law to the contrary fell in error and did not appreciate the import of that judgment correctly. 26. We are not persuaded to accept the argument of Mr. Sharma that the question regarding truthfulness or falsehood of the transactions reflected in the return can only be examined during the original assessment proceedings and not at any stage subsequent thereto. The argument is too broad and general in nature and does violence to the plain phraseology of Sections 147(a) and 148 of the Act and is against the settled law by this Court. We have to look to the purpose and intent of the provisions. One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing . It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude. 27. In our opinion, therefore, in the facts of the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
