9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., situated at GIDC Savli, Manjusar, Vadodara. 3.2) It is the case of the petitioner that during the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the petitioner received certain funds from Prraneta Industries Ltd.(Now known as Aadhar Venture India Ltd) and the same were repaid during before the end of the year under consideration which included a sum aggregating to Rs. 2,10,00,000/- received through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) on 02.02.2011. 3.3) The petitioner filed original return of income for the year under consideration on 25.08.2011 declaring total income at Rs.19,03,430/-. 3.4) It is the case of the petitioner that after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration. 3.5) The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 25.04.2018 and submitted copy of such return of income to the respondent vide letter dated 26.04.2018 and requested the respondent to supply the copy of reasons recorded for reopening. 3.6) Accordingly, the respondents supplied the copy of reasons recorded f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such transactions. Other two transactions are of 4.94 lakh only. Salary of Rs 12 lakh is reflected as received from Ratanveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd. No bank detail is shown in ITS data for the A.Y. 2011-12 while as per transaction details, bank account has to there. Information received also establishes bank account of the assessee. 5. The credit of Rs 2.1 Cr in bank account of shri Vijay R. Sanghvi on a single day from 2.2.2011.from account of a company is neither commensurate with income of shown in return filed by shri Vijay R. Sanghvi in ITR-2. The return filed in ITR-2 by an individual assessee do not reflect such huge amount of fund received and thus escapement of income on account of such accommodation entries by the assessee is evident. 6. As per the information available on records, three entries of Rs 70 lakh each totaling to Rs 2.1 Cr received on 2.2.2011 through an established entry provider entity and also that returned income by assessee is not commensurate with said transaction as mentioned supra. I am satisfied that entry of Rs 2.1 Cr obtained by assessee was unaccounted money routed through accommodation entries in his bank account. In view of this, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablish that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax. It was submitted that in case of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer was of the view that funds aggregating to Rs. 2,10,00,000/- received from Prraneta Industries Ltd. are nothing but accommodation entries and therefore, this is a fit case for reopening. However, the respondent has failed to appreciate that the petitioner assessee having received funds from a particular person cannot be a ground to have reason to believe that the same represents the income of the petitioner which has escaped assessment. It was submitted that each and every receipt need not be income of the assessee. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out how such funds can be said to be the income of the assessee and unless it is stated that the underlying transaction has resulted into income which has escaped assessment, the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated. It was submitted that the petitioner had already mentioned about the bank details in the statement of the total income and therefore, the Assessing Officer is not correct in holding that bank details are not mentioned in the return of income and the allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be some kind of cause and effect relationship between 'reasons recorded' and 'income escaping assessment. 4.6) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued if and only if an Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It was submitted that an Assessing Officer himself must be satisfied that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and such satisfaction must be of the Assessing Officer himself. However, in facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received from DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai for the purpose of reopening the assessment and the Assessing Officer has not applied mind independently so as to reach to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment. It was submitted that in absence of such an exercise, it becomes clear that the assessment has been reopened merely based on borrowed sanctification as against the statutory requirement of independent satisfaction. 4.7) It was therefore, submitted that reopening beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is nothing but a mere cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Security and Finance Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, officer Circle 1(1) reported in (2018) 254 taxmann 81, after relying on various decisions of the Apex Court have dismissed the petitions challenging the identical notice of reopening issued under section1 48 of the Act. It was submitted that the SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15381 of 2014 challenging the decision of this Court in case of Yogendrakumar Gupta has also been dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 26.09.2014. 5.4) Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai recorded the satisfaction to the effect that income to the tune of Rs. 2.1 Crore chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, it cannot be said that reopening in the present case is without any basis and for carrying out roving and fishing inquiry. 5.5) Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT reported in 102 ITR 287 (SC), it was submitted that the expression "has reason to believe" is wider than expression "is satisfied" and information for reopening may come from external source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er failure on part of the assessee to make a return of his income for that assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In the present case, based upon the information received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai about the three accommodation entries of Rs. 70 Lakh each credited in the petitioner's account, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that such transaction is not a genuine transaction. However, the petitioner assessee had disclosed all relevant facts necessary for assessment which included details of bank statement and even bank interest income from Saving bank account and therefore, all the requisite details were disclosed which were facts necessary for assessment. 9. On perusal of the reasons recorded, the assessment is sought to be reopened for verification of the facts which are already on record as to whether the amount of Rs. 2.1 crore received by the assessee and reflected in the regular books of accounts pertains to any accommodation entry or not. It is not in dispute that the assessee returned that amount within a short span of two months. Therefore, it appears that under the guise of reopening t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
