Search Results For: Reopening of assessment


Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: August 30, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 14, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: It is mandatory for the AO to follow the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections. The disposal of the objections in the assessment order is not sufficient compliance with the procedure. The failure to follow the procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires (Bayer Material Science 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron (Bom) followed)

The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have first disposed of the Appellant’s objections by passing a speaking order and only upon communication of the same to the Appellants, proceeded to reopen the assessment

Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)

As per this Explanation thus, production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 147. Here is not a case where the Assessee is seeking to rely on a disclosure which the Revenue can seek to bring within the fold of the said Explanation. Here is a case where the Department already had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.

Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)

There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice or reopening of assessment is invalid in law. It is not necessary to refer to all the judgments on the point. Suffice it to say, as per the settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid

PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening: High Court should decide (i) validity of s. 148 notice where assessment is made u/s 143(1) & not u/s 143(3), (ii) whether notice can be said to be based on change of opinion if there is no foundation to form any such opinion, (iii) Whether requirements of s. 148 are satisfied, namely, that it contains the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and furnishes the necessary details for assessing the escaped income and (iv) whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits is legally sustainable

The objections raised by the respondent (assessee) to the notice contending inter alia that since the impugned notice was based on “change of the opinion” and hence bad in law was upheld by the ITAT resulting in allowing the respondent’s appeal and further by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by the High Court. The Revenue has felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing their appeal in limine and has filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court

NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 7, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus share capital: Though the reopening is based on information supplied by the investigation wing, the reasons do not specify that the investment was non-genuine. The AO cannot reopen to investigate into the source of genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors as it falls within the realm of fishing enquiries which is wholly impermissible in law

The reasons do not specify that the information supplied to the Assessing Officer by the Investigation Wing, suggested that such investment was non­ genuine. In this context, Assessing Officer refers to the requirement of verifying the genuineness of investor and requirement of further investigation. These observations would not further the case of the Revenue, these being no information with the Assessing Officer, prima facie, indicating that the investments were not genuine. The investigation into the source of genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor company would fall within the relam of fishing enquiries, which is wholly impermissible in law in the context of the re­opening of the assessment

Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts

If during the assessment of the later assessment year, the Assessing officer collects or chances upon new material which may have bearing on the assessment of the assessee, and in case where the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years, he can also establish lack of true and full disclosures on the part of the assessee, it may be open for him to reopen assessment of the earlier year. However, merely because in the later year, the Assessing Officer takes a different view on the basis of similar material, which may have been collected during such process, would not permit him to reopen the assessment

Kalsha Builders Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 1, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 reopening for bogus share application money: Merely because AO examined the transactions does not preclude him from subsequent inquiry if additional material prime facie shows that disclosures made by assessee were not true. Requirement of true and full disclosure runs through the entire assessment and does not end on filing of return. Reasons have to read as a whole. Mere non recitation of allegation reg failure of full & true disclosure does not invalidate the reasons or the fact that the reasons are based on allegations of lack of true and full particulars

Merely because the Assessing Officer had examined the transactions during the original assessment proceedings, would not preclude him from subsequent inquiry it is shown on the strength of additional material establishing prime facie that the disclosures made by the assessee were not true. If the entire claim is bogus and so established to be, the assessee would fail the test of true and full disclosure. Requirement of true and full disclosure runs through the entire assessment and it does not end on filing of return

Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 30, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 23, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of s. 143(1) Intimation for Bogus share capital: The AO cannot reopen without establishing prima facie that assessee's own money has been routed back in form of share capital. While he can rely on the report of the Investigation Wing, he has to carry out further examination and analysis in order to establish the nexus between the material and formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. In absence thereof, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 has no legal basis and resultant reassessment proceedings deserve to be set-aside

Based on perusal of the report of the DIT, Investigation Wing, New Delhi, the Assessing officer has formed not merely a prima facie belief but has reached a conclusion that the assessee has routed back his undisclosed income in the form of share capital. For reaching such a decisive finding that it is assessee’s undisclosed income which has reached the investor company and thereafter, the latter has invested the amount so received in the assessee’s company by way of share capital, there is nothing which has been stated in the reasons so recorded. As we have noted above, the satisfaction of the Assessing officer should be discernable from the reasons so recorded only and nothing can be added or supplemented to the reasons.

Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening: If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. A writ petition to challenge the reopening will not be entertained

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 296 ITR 90 Bom has provided that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections of the assessee, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order of objections. The petitioner by its conduct destroyed this formula provided by the Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra), making it impossible for the assessing officer to wait for four weeks after disposal of objections without running the risk of allowing the assessment to be time barred

DCIT vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening for taxing Bogus share capital: Even in a s. 143(1) intimation, the AO is not entitled to reopen on the ground that the assessee has received "huge share premium" which was not "examined" by the AO. The AO cannot reopen in the absence of tangible material that shows income has escaped assessment

The assessment was processed under section 143(1). The assessment was reopened on 29.03.2014 without four year from the end of relevant Assessment Year. We have noted that the Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned in the reasons recorded that any tangible material either from assessment record or from other source has come in the notice of Assessing Officer for his reason to believe that any income has escape assessment. Therefore, the basic requirement of reopening of the assessee i.e. reason to believe was not fulfilled at the time of recording the reasons of reopening

Top