9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment. I am, therefore satisfied that this is a fit case for re-opening u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for assessment year 2006-07." 3. The reasons so recorded were not supplied to the assessee at any stage. It was during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal on 11th May, 2016 that the Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment. Vide letter dated 24th June, 2016, the Assessing Officer has furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment. 4. On a perusal of the reasons for reopening the assessment, as furnished by the Assessing Officer, it was pointed out to the learned Departmental Representative that there is nothing in the reasons to suggest escapement of income, and that mere deposit in Bank cannot lead to the conclusion, or even inference, that income has escaped assessment. Learned Departmental Representative was directed to address the Tribunal on this proposition, as also on the order of the division bench, in the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO [(2015) 68 SOT 197 URO (Del), accepting these propositions. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, and having perused the material on record, I see no reasons to take a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Joshi vs. ITO [(2010) 230 CTR (Bom) 232.] has observed: "The AO must have reasons to believe that such is the case (i.e. any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for a particular year) before he proceeds to issue notice under s. 147". In other words, when no reasons are recorded for reopening the assessment prior to issuance of notice, the reassessment proceedings must fail for that reason alone. However, for the reasons we will set out now, the conclusions will be no different even if it is presumed that this communication, extracts from which are reproduced before, only conveys the reasons already recorded prior to issuance of notice. 7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], has, inter alia, observed that "..........It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437], "the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of this belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the ITO on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that it is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. 8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456], that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO "rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material facts truly and fully and, therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment" and we are unable to see anything on the facts of the present case which are materially similar to the facts of the said case. As regards her reliance on the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Mithila Credit Services Limited Vs ITO (ITA No. 1078/Del/2013; order dated 23.5.2014), it is important to bear in mind the fact that it was a case in which the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment on the basis of receipt of information from Directorate of Investigation, and, as noted by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, "the name of the assessee figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions" in the inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
