TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the Investigating Wing, Surat for the purpose of reopening of the assessment and any independent satisfaction to the effect that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not reflected. It is a settled principle of law that the respondent cannot justify by taking recourse to some material and information beyond the scope of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to reopening. In the instant case, the respondent has traveled beyond the scope of reasons recorded in order to justify the action of reopening. It is pertinent to note that while disposing of the objections against the reopening, Assessing Officer has observed that it has credible information as received by the office pertaining to the transaction claimed as a part of turnover and same can be clearly made out from the copy of the reasons recorded provided by the office. After close scrutiny of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer did not have refer the facts that the transactions was part of the turnover. Therefore, we hold that the formation of belief entertained by the Assessing Officer seems to be vague and based on irrelevant material. Assumption of jurisdiction on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961 was issued to Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika. Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika has not responded to the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued. Another Summons dated 13.02.2018 was issued to Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika and the address mentioned in the return of income i.e. at Shiv Mandir, Rustomwadi, Navsari. Again there was no response to the said Summons as well. In order to verify the facts and collect relevant information, Summons was issued to the Manager, Allahabad Bank and Axis Bank Ltd for submission of details in reference to Shri Shaileshkumar Ramesh Naika. ...... .... 2.10 On perusal of the bank statement of account no. 50050442936 held with Allahabad Bank, it is seen that M/s. Alliance Filaments Ltd. is a beneficiary, who has made transaction with Shri Shaileshkumar R. Naika (an entry provider as established in the enquiry made by the DDIT (Inv. )- 2, Surat). During the year under consideration, M/s. Alliance Filaments Ltd. had made. transaction amounting to ₹ 20,00,055/- on 26.11.2011 with Shri Shaileshkumar R. Naika (an entry provider as established in the enquiry made by the DDIT (Inv.)- 2, Surat), this transaction is thus, bogus i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aped assessment for the year consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 1 to 6). I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submissions made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the following material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration, thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. It is true that the assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P L account and balance sheet along with return of income where various information / material were disclosed However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee has produced audited P L account and balance sheet as mentioned above, the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening was not as such disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it 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 finding as to escapement of income. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee has disclosed the transaction of ₹ 20,00,055/- made with Shaileshkumar Naika during the scrutiny assessment and the amount already considered by the then Assessing Officer, now for the inquiry or verification with regard to other transaction of Mr. Shaileshkumar Naika, the reopening is not permissible. 4.4 It was further contended that there was no failure on the part of the writ applicant as to full and true disclosure of the materials, since the amount of share capital and share premium received by the assessee including the sum received from Mr. Shaileshkumar Naika was added under Section 68 of the Act, while framing assessment under Section 143 of the Act, therefore, it demonstrate that all the necessary primary evidence having been disclosed at the time of scrutiny assessment, therefore, now the action of reopening is not justified in eye of law. 4.5 It was further pointed out that the Assessing Officer has mainly re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share premium received by the writ applicant during the year under consideration, which included sum of ₹ 20,00,055/- received from Mr. Shaileshkumar Naika. It is undisputed fact that the writ applicant had challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 07.03.2017 confirmed the addition of ₹ 5,28,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act and same was challenged by way of an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is pending as on date. Admittedly, the disputed amount of ₹ 20,00,055/- for which the notice issued was added by the then Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act. In other words, the underlying amount has already been added by the Assessing Officer at the original assessment stage. 10. It is settled law that as per Section 147, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 assess or reassess such income, which has escaped assessment. It is also settled that where the assessment under Sections 143 or 147 has been made for the relevant asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal. As the issue of alleged transaction of ₹ 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 in the reassessment proceedings. 15. It is not the case of the revenue that the transaction as reported by the Investigating Wing, Surat was distinct and has no relation with the earlier scrutiny assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, as such there was no tangible material in the hands of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the proceedings. 16. We are of the view that the Assessing Officer has acted mechanically based on the information received from the Investigating Wing, Surat for the purpose of reopening of the assessment and any independent satisfaction to the effect that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not reflected. 17. It is a settled principle of law that the respondent cannot justify by taking recourse to some material and information beyond the scope of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to reopening. In the instant case, the respondent has traveled beyond the scope of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
