TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt has also in similar case, in the case of Aaspas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 557 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] held that if on the basis of information supplied by/from the office of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), the A.O., has found that the petitioner assessee was the beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the other assessee, it could not be said that there was no tangible material available with the A.O., to prima facie form an opinion/belief that income of the petitioner chargeable to tax has escaped an assessment. As rightly submitted by the learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr.Raval, what is required to reopen a case is reason to believe , the sufficiency or correctness of material cannot be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.Y. 2012-13, a return of income was filed on 29.9.2012 by the petitioner. No scrutiny assessment was filed under Section 143(3) of the said Act. The petitioner received the impugned Notice dated 26.3.2019 issued by the respondent under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the said Act, stating inter alia that the respondent had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner chargeable to Tax for the A. Y. 2012- 13 had escaped assessment. The petitioner, therefore, was called upon to deliver a return in the prescribed form for the said A.Y. The respondent also issued a letter dated 7.5.2019 providing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 under Section 147 of the said Act. The petitioner filed his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the unreported judgement of this Court in case of Parth Knitex Pvt. Ltd., Pravinkumar Ramkaran Agarval Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) (Special Civil Application No.21107 of 2017 decided on 27.2.2018) and in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Others, reported in 259 ITR 19 in support of his submissions. 5. Per Contra the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Nikunt Raval for the respondent submitted that a survey action was undertaken by the Investigation Wing, Surat under Section 133A of the said Act in case of one Kamal Jayantilal Zaveri, Proprietor of M/s.Rishi Corporation on 24.3.2015 and during the reassessment proceedings in case of the said Kamal Jayantilal Zaveri, the impounde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sufficiency or correctness of the material could not be considered at this juncture and what is required to be considered is whether prima facie there was some material before the Assessing Officer for reopening of the case of the assessment. 6. At the outset, it may be stated that one of the purposes of Section 147 of the said Act is to ensure that a party does not get away by willfully making false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment, and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you cannot do anything , as observed by the Supreme Court in case of M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another, reported in 203 ITR 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which have been rejected by the respondent. 8. Now, it appears that the impugned action under Section 147/148 of the said Act has been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on the basis of the material and the impounded documents recovered during the course of survey action undertaken by the Investigation Wing, Surat under Section 133A of the said Act in case of one Shri Kamal J. Zaveri, Proprietor of M/s. Rishit Corporation on 24.3.2015. Therefore, there was a tangible material available with the respondent and the said material had a prima facie link with the petitioner and with the formation of the belief by the respondent that income of about ₹ 67,64,463/- had escaped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. 13. The decision relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr.D. R. Patel for the petitioner in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Others (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, it was observed that the A. O. is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time, and on receipt of the reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the A. O., is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, the A. O. has disposed of the objections of the petitioner by passing a speaking order considering al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
