9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eopening of assessment for assessment year ('A.Y.') 2008-09 and the order dated 21st January 2016, rejecting the objections raised by Petitioner to the notice issued to re-assess the income. 2. Rule was issued on 16th April 2016. No reply filed till date. FACTS: 3. Petitioner a partnership firm filed its return of income for AY 2008-09 on 15th September 2008. It's case was selected for scrutiny and a Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19th August 2009. Thereafter, by a notice u/s 142(1) dated 12th July 2010 a questionnaire seeking details regarding loans and advances of secured and unsecured loans with names /address details, interest payment, loan confirmation details of unsecured loans, details of source and capacity of creditor, complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and contended that the department had to only make out a 'prima facie case' on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case and the 'sufficiency and correctness' of the material was not a thing to be considered at this stage. In support, they relied on the following cases: i. M/s Bright Star Syntex Pvt. Ltd v ITO 9(2)(1) & Ors Writ Petition No. 430 of 2016 (Bom) Judgment dated 14th March 2016. ii. Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT Range 1 (2) Writ Petition No. 2860 of 2012 (Bom) Judgment dated 18th June 2014. iii. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v ITO [1993] 69 Taxman 627 iv. Ess Ess Kay Engg. Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [2002] 124 Taxman 491 (Supreme Court) v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v ITO [1999] 236 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section." "It is, therefore, essential that before such action is taken the requirements of the law should be satisfied. The live link or close nexus which should be there between the material before the Income-tax Officer." 11. We find that the 'reasons recorded', do not state the primary fact/s that had not been disclosed as laid down in the case of Gemini Leathers v ITO [100 ITR 1]. It is further evident that the case of Rushabh Enterprises (same group as the Petitioner) in W.P No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect whilst holding that: "...This satisfaction has necessarily to be the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and unless it is shown by the Petitioner that such a reasonable belief as arrived at by the Assessing Officer in the facts of the cases is just not possible, the proceedings for reassessment duly initiated will not be stalled." In our view, the Petitioner has by production of bank statements and supporting documents shown that the reasonable belief of the AO was unfounded and consequently the presumption that the Petitioner was one of the beneficiary of the accommodation entries based on the statement of the third party was disproved. Consequently, the onus would be on the AO to provide reasons to disbelieve the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
