9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e carried out and additions were made in the hands of the assessee. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of re-opening on the ground that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer for framing the reasons and the reopening is merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction in the form of information received from the investigation wing. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessee's case, reads as under:- " Name of the assessee P. L. Goenka HUP Address of the assessee I 3A, Diamond Towers,30, D.H. Road, Kolkata-700027 PAN of the assessee AAFHP9930D Assessment Year 2013-14 Details of the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee I.T.O Ward-29(4), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan/4th Floor, 2, Gariahat Road South, Kolkata-700068 Information has been received from the A.D.I.T (Inv), Unit-l(l), Kolkata vide letter No. DDIT(Inv)/Unit-1(l)/Kolkata/2019-20/8005-5879-40458 dated 06.03.2020 that M/s Nectar Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., M/s Moonview Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Snowhill Dealtade Ltd. are struck off companies. They were maintaining accounts with ICICI Bank. On analysis of the bank statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In this case a return was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act as stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act was made and the return was not processed u/s 143(1) as well. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to the facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per provisions of section 151 of the Act." 4. Referring to the above reasons it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that, ld. Assessing Officer has acted only on the information and without believing that the income has escaped, has only referred to the bogus long term capital gain/short term capital loss and the sale consideration. Referring to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Jai Prakash Gupta vs. ITO in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiries may include analysis of return of income, audited P&L A/c and balance sheet, assessment folder in eases where assessment have been made u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act, information as available on ITBA portal on ITS/ 360 degree profile, enquiry made from other agencies which may include scrutiny of the information available on MCA website, information as available on internet website and details of other enquiries made by the AO through issue of letter u/s 133(6)/ summon u/s 131 from assessee and other relevant parties. 5th paragraph: It will contain summary of findings of the AO on the basis of analysis of information received/collected/found by the AO and the result of follow up enquiries made by the AO. 5th paragraph: It will include 'basis of reason to believe' along with nature and quantum of income escaping assessment. The AO will draw link between the findings and reasons to believe and will also give a categorical finding that reason to believe is based on his/her application of mind on the facts and information received/collected/found and it is not a case of change in opinion. 7th paragraph: It will give detail and instances along .with corroborative ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale consideration and exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act has been claimed at Rs. 3,86,377/- and it is a case of long term capital gain and not short term capital loss. 7. The above factual observation clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has not made application of mind for re-opening the case of the assessee after four years as the assessee has furnished all the details of the alleged transactions in its income tax return. It is also evident that the Assessing Officer has not adhered to the standard operating procedures framed by the CBDT to record the reasons for re-opening. Under such circumstances, as there is no independent application of mind by the ld. Assessing Officer which forms the basis of reason to believe that income has escaped assessment then such reopening of assessments is merely on borrowed satisfaction. This Tribunal in the case of Jai Prakash Gupta (supra) dealing with similar issue of reopening on the basis of information about the bogus long term capital gain has held as follows:- "12. Relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Courts it is clear that in the instant case the AO has simply reproduced the information from DIT(Inv) that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
