9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer has reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act. 2.3 At the request, the reasons recorded have been furnished to the assessee on 08.05.2019, which reads as under : Reasons recorded: "Brief details of the Assessee: The assessee company filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 showing total income at Rs. 58,23,400/- An order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2015 determining assessed income of Rs. 5,86,23,400/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Polyster Staple Fibres. 2. This office is in possession of a piece of information disseminated by Investigation Wing, Surat. An enquiry was carried by the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-2, Surat in the case of Shri Shailesh R. Naika concern connected to it, after information was received about the suspicious financial transaction entered into by them. 2.1. The DDIT(Inv.)-2, Surat has reported that an open inquiry was initiated with the prior approval of the Addl. DIT (Inv), Surat. Summons u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika. Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s transaction amounting to Rs. 20,00,055/- during the F.Y.2011-12 relevant A.Y.2012-13, the assessee company thereby attempt to reduce its resultant tax liability. 6. In view of above facts/material available on records and after analyzing the same I have reason to believe and am satisfied that income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 20,00,055/- has escaped assessment for A.Y.2012-13 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. 7. In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was made on 18.12.2018. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 1 to 6). I have carefully considered the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the revenue. 4. Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ applicant has raised the following contentions: 4.1 It was argued that the impugned notice as well as impugned order disposing of the objections are patently illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction because the condition precedent for valid reopening under Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied. 4.2 It was pointed out that the impugned amount of Rs. 20,00,055/- has already been added by the Assessing Officer at the original assessment stage, as the transaction with Mr. Naika were scrutinized at the original assessment stage and the sum of share capital and share premium received from Shaileshkumar Naika was added by the then Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the condition precedent for resorting to reopening of the proceedings under Section 147 is not satisfied, as there was no escapement of any income chargeable to tax. 4.3 Referring to reasons recorded, learned senior counsel for the writ applicant submitted that the action of reopening is not permissible for carrying out roving and/or fishing inquiry or investigation without there being a specific f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and true disclosure of all material evidence necessary for assessment has not been made by the assessee. Therefore, the action of reopening is justifiable. The assessing Officer has verified the case record and drawn his satisfaction that income to the tune of Rs. 20,00,055/- has escaped assessment. 7. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel appearing for the revenue urged that the writ application may not be entertained. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the materials on record. 9. It appears from the record that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 29.9.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 58,23,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and after considering the necessary materials submitted by the assessee, the then Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act and made various additions including Rs. 5,28,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of Share capital and share premium received by the writ applicant during the year under consideration, which included sum of Rs. 20,00,055/- received from Mr. Shaileshkumar Naika. It is undisputed fact that the writ app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and after a detailed inquiry the revenue had framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 various additions were made including an addition of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration which included the sum of Rs. 20,00,055/- received from Shaileshkumar Naika. 14. A plain reading of the reasons recorded revels that the Assessing Officer has solely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing- Surat. We are of the view that, the Assessing Officer has not applied his independent mind while recording the reasons that the income has escaped assessment. The original assessment record was with the Assessing Officer. The scrutiny assessment framed by the respondent has been challenged by the assessee company and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. As the issue of alleged transaction of Rs. 20,00,055/- was earlier added by the then Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act at the original assessment stage, the same amount cannot be brought to tax once again i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
