Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 20 September 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 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 2012, seeking to reopen the assessment fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 made at a lower cost from the grey market and disallowed certain purchases as bogus purchases. 4. On 28 March 2019, the Respondent No.1- Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act. Reasons for issuing the notice were supplied to the Petitioner, which are reproduced as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of Manufacturing Industry, trading and exporting of rough diamonds and diamond powder. Assessee had f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP had upheld the decision of High Court for addition of entire income on account of bogus purchases in the case of M/s NK Proteins Ltd. v/s. DCIT [2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT] vide its order dated 16/01/2017. Subsequently, the department in other cases too had made 100% disallowance on account of accommodation entry/bogus purchases. Accordingly, bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 7,87,00,670/- were required to be disallowed and added back to total income of the assessee. In view of the ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. By various judicial pronouncements, this condition is now firmly established as the jurisdictional requirement to reopen of the assessment. Further, the reassessment shall not be undertaken on a mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings are not akin to review. In such circumstances, a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained by the Courts despite the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal. 8. Dr.Shivram, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that there two main points on which the petitioner is entitled to succeed. First, that not only there is no failure by the Petitioner to disclos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... after four years is not present. Neither it has been alleged. 10. Dr. Shivram then submitted that the foundation of the first reopening notice and the second notice is the same. That is the issue of bogus purchases and accommodation of entries and that there is a clear change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that, 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-TIOL-23-SC-IT v. DCIT). Even this decision was before the Assessing Officer in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates