TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this material, the Assessing Officer had, in fact, made certain additions. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a failure by the Petitioner to disclose all material facts fully and truly. In the circumstances, the jurisdictional requirement to reopen the assessment proceeding after four years is not present. Neither it has been alleged. In the reasons supplied along with first reopening notice, the issue of bogus accommodation of entries regarding purchases was discussed. The reasons given for second reopening notice reproduced above also refer to the said fact. The reasons also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.N.K.Proteins Ltd. [ 2017 (1) TMI 1090 - SC ORDER] Even this decision was before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of diamonds. The Petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 20 September 2012 declaring total income of ₹ 29,76,330/-. The Respondent No.1- Assessing Officer sought details from the Petitioner regarding purchases, sundry creditors and sundry debtors and a notice to that effect under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31 July 2014. The Petitioner replied to the said notice on 19 August 2014 and submitted details as sought for. An assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 19 February 2015 under section 143(3) of the Act without making any disallowances of the purchases. 3. The Petitioner received a notice from the Assessing Officer dated 29 September 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above mentioned party is engaged in the business of issuing fraudulent sales bills without delivery of goods. In the statement recorded from the above party by the Income Tax Department, it was admitted that, they had sold bills as per the requirement of the assessee. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that income of ₹ 8,83,42,172/- chargeable to tax, has escaped for assessment year 2012- 13, and therefore, the assessment needs to be re-opened as per the provision of section 147 of the IT Act 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13 and notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act needs to be issued. After considering the response of the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer concluded that the purchases were made, however, they were m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y assessments that such transactions were bogus accommodation entries. However, on scrutiny of the assessment order, it was observed that the Assessing Officer had made only addition of ₹ 21,72,138/- [ie. 2.76% of non genuine/bogus purchase of ₹ 7,87,00,670/-). 1 It is observed that all the purchases made by the assessee were bogus and not actually purchased by the assessee, then as per proviso mentioned above, all the expenditure belongs to the bogus purchase would have been disallowed. Also, the parties who had issued the bogus bills they have given their statements on oath, that only bills and no actual transaction had taken place between them and the assessee company. In this connection, it is pertinent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned notice dated 28 March 2019. This is beyond the period of four years. The period of four years is of significance because of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It stipulates an additional requirement when the assessment is sought to be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Where an assessment under section 143(3) is made for the relevant assessment year, then no action shall be taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year for the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a ground to set aside the Reassessment notice. Pursuant to the reasons given along with first reopening notice dated 29 September 2012, the Petitioner had supplied all the material regarding the very same allegations against the Petitioner and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer. All the material was placed before the Assessing Officer by the Petitioner. Acting upon this material, the Assessing Officer had, in fact, made certain additions. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a failure by the Petitioner to disclose all material facts fully and truly. In the circumstances, the jurisdictional requirement to reopen the assessment proceeding after four years is not present. Neither it has been alleged. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
