Search Results For: reasons


Dulraj U. Jain vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 19, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the recorded reasons do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs.1,00,000, and if the reopening is to "verify" suspicious transactions, prima-facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belief of the AO and the notice is without jurisdiction

Further, the reasons also do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned notice

Usha Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If there is nothing in the recorded reasons to suggest that the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is Rs. one lakh or more, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act beyond four years of the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid

The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases falling under section 34(1A), action can be taken only where the income which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs.1 lakh or more. In other words, it is only in regard to cases where the escaped income is of a high magnitude that the restriction of the period of limitation has been removed. Since no reasons were recorded that the escaped income is likely to be Rs.1 lac or more so that the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may record his satisfaction under section 151, the initiation of reassessment proceedings after more than four years was clearly barred by time

Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the reopening is based on information received from the investigation dept, the reasons must show that the AO independently applied his mind to the information and formed his own opinion. If the reopening is done mechanically, it is void. Also, if the reasons refer to any document, a copy should be provided to the assessee. Failure to do so results in breach of natural justice and renders the reopening void

No independent application of mind by the AO to the material forming the basis of the reasons recorded is evincible from the reasons. The AO, in the reasons, has just stated the information received and his conclusion about the alleged escapement of income. As to what the AO did with the information made available to him, is not discernible from the reasons. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO thereon, as also the conclusions thereof. Further where the reasons make a reference to any document, such document and / or relevant portion thereof must be enclosed along with the reasons

PCIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even a s. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases "needed deep verification", it means the AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible

It is equally well settled that the notice of reopening can be supported on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He cannot supplement such reasons. The third principle of law which is equally well settled and which would apply in the present case is that reopening of the assessment would not be permitted for a fishing or a roving inquiry. This can as well be seen as part of the first requirement of the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In other words, notice of reopening which is issued barely for making fishing inquiry, would not satisfy this requirement

Coronation Agro Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: It is a regular practice for the broker to make modifications in the client code after the purchase and sale of securities. The mere fact that there is a client code modification prima facie does not mean that any income has escaped assessment. it appears to be case of 'reason to suspect' and not 'reason to believe'

We note that the reasons in support of the impugned notice accept the fact that as a matter of regular business practice, a broker in the stock exchange makes modifications in the client code on sale and / or purchase of any securities, after the trading is over so as to rectify any error which may have occurred while punching the orders. The reasons do not indicate the basis for the Assessing Officer to come to reasonable belief that there has been any escapement of income on the ground that the modifications done in the client code was not on account of a genuine error, originally occurred while punching the trade. The material available is that there is a client code modification done by the Assessee’s broker but there is no link from there to conclude that it was done to escape assessment of a part of its income. Prima facie, this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

Woodward Governor (India) Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even if the claim for s. 80-IA deduction is contrary to Pandian Chemicals 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC), the assessment cannot be reopened (beyond 4 years) in the absence of tangible material. The reasons recorded for the reopening cannot be improved or supplemented later

The rationale furnished by the revenue in its counter affidavit and reiterated in the court during the hearing was that a component of income which was otherwise inadmissible but escaped the notice of the AO, because of the ratio in Liberty India and Pandian (supra) is unpersuasive. Besides, the lack of any reference to objective material, cannot in any way improve the case of the revenue – much less its reference to otherwise binding judgments that could have been the basis of a valid revision by the revenue under Section 264. It goes without saying that statutory orders containing reasons are to be judged on the basis of what is apparent and not what is explained later, as the validity of those orders does not improve with time or on account of better explanations furnished in the course of legal proceedings (refer M.S. Gill and Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 581)

CIT vs. IDBI Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Non-supply by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment (even where the reopening is prior to GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC)) renders the reassessment order bad as being without jurisdiction

An alternative submission is made on behalf of the Revenue that the obligation to supply reasons on the Assessing Officer was consequent to the decision of the Apex Court that GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) rendered in 2003 while, in the present case, the reopening notice is dated 9 December 1996. Thus it submitted at the time when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the time when assessment was completed, there was no such requirement to furnish to the assessee a copy of the reasons recorded. This submission is not correct. We find that the impugned order relies upon the decision of this Court in Seista Steel Construction (P.) Ltd. [1984] 17 Taxman 122(Bom.) when it is held that in the absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the assessment order would be without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. The above view as taken by the Tribunal has also been taken by this Court in CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 Taxmann 53 (Bombay) viz. non-supply of reasons recorded to issue a reopening notice would make the order of Assessment passed thereon bad as being without jurisdiction

Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: The AO is duty bound to provide to the assessee the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment within a reasonable time. Failure to do so renders the reassessment order unsustainable in law

On the request of the Assessee, the AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act within a reasonable period of time so that the assessee could file its objections thereto and the AO was to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order thereon, which the AO has not done. We also note that even as per the rules of natural justice, the assessee is entitled to know the reasons on the basis of which the AO has formed an opinion that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The furnishing of reasons to the assessee is to enable/facilitate it to present its defence and objections to the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was no justifiable reasons for the AO to deprive the assessee of the recorded reasons by him for initiating proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act

Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Non-furnishing by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment results in violation of the law laid down in GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19 (SC) & renders the reopening void

Despite repeated letters requesting to provide copy of the reasons recorded or the grounds on which the assessment was reopened, no such reasons were provided to the assessee. We find that the DR could not substantiate whether any reasons were provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and merely relying on the fact that general practice was followed in Department of supplying reasons, it cannot be presumed that reasons were supplied in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not complied with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) limited Vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) providing reasons for reassessment within a reasonable time, and therefore respectfully following the decisions cited above, the reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained in the case of the assessee and quashed

Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 10, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Law laid down in DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co 373 ITR 661 does not mean that in cases where no assessment order is passed and assessment is completed by Intimation u/s 143(1), the sine qua non to show that there is "reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" is not required. It is open to the assessee to challenge a notice issued u/s 148 as being without jurisdiction for absence of reason to believe even in case where the assessment has been completed earlier by Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act

It is settled position in law that the decision of the Court has to be read in the context of the facts involved therein and not on the basis of what logically flows therefrom as held by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat, 1987(1) SCC 213. The Apex Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra)not having dealt with the issue of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the part of the Assessing Officer in cases where regular assessment was completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, it would not be wise for us to infer that the Supreme Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra) has held that the condition precedent for the issue of reopening notice namely, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, has no application where the assessment has been completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The law on this point has been expressly laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) and the same would continue to apply and be binding upon us. Thus, even in cases where no assessment order is passed and assessment is completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the sine qua non to issue a reopening notice is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the above view, it is open for the petitioner to challenge a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as being without jurisdiction for absence of reason to believe even in case where the Assessment has been completed earlier by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act

Top