Search Results For: Reopening of assessment


PCIT vs. Inarco Limited (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/50C: The assessment cannot be reopened (within 4 years) on the ground that the AO lost sight of a statutory provision like 50C. This amounts to a review. A.L.A. Firm 55 TM 497 (SC) distinguished on the basis that the reopening in that case was because the AO was unaware of a binding High Court judgement. Here it is not the case of the Revenue that the AO was not aware of s. 50C at the time of passing the S. 143(3) assessment order

The basis of reopening the assessment in A.L.A. Firm (Supra) was the decision in the case of G.R.Ramachari & Co. (Supra) coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of assessment proceedings. In this case it is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessing Officer was not aware of Section 50C of the Act at the time of passing the Assessement Order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143 of the Act. In this case the trigger to reopen assessment proceedings as recorded in the reasons is nonfurnishing of copy of the sale deed by the Respondent. This has been found factually to be incorrect. Therefore, once the sale deed was before Assessing Officer and enquiries were made during the assessment proceedings regarding the quantum of capital gains, it must follow that the Assessing Officer had while passing the order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act had taken view on facts and in law as in force at the relevant time. Thus, this is a case of change of opinion

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: (i) Sanction granted by writing "Yes, I am satisfied" is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151 because it means that the approving authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, (ii) If information is received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information cannot be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified (All imp judgements referred)

This shows that the AO proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without any application of mind and exercise on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the AO proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without any application of mind and examination of the so called material and information received from the investigation wing to establish any nexus, even prima facie, with the such information

CIT vs. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 31, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148/ 151: If the AO reopens the assessment by obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, there is a breach of section 151 which renders the reopening void

It is undisputed position before us that in terms of Section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/ permission to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not sought the approval of the Designated Officer but of the Commissioner of Income Tax. This is clear from the Form used to obtain the sanction. In any case, the approval/ satisfaction recorded in the form submitted for sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax by the Assessing Officer reproduced herein above, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax had not granted permission to initiate reopening proceedings against the Respondent Assessee

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

Ghanshyam vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: If the CIT merely states "Yes, I am satisfied" while granting sanction to the reopening, it means that the sanction is merely mechanical and he has not applied independent mind. There is not an iota of material on record as to what documents he had perused and what were the reasons for his being satisfied to accord the sanction to initiate the reopening of assessment (All judgements referred)

Apparently, from the approval recorded and words used that “Yes. I am satisfied.”, it has proved on record that the sanction is merely mechanical and Addl. CIT has not applied independent mind while according sanction as there is not an iota of material on record as to what documents he had perused and what were the reasons for his being satisfied to accord the sanction to initiate the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act

Zuari Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Law on reopening of assessments within four years and beyond four years explained with reference to all important case laws. Strictures passed against the AO for making comments which are highly objectionable and bordering on contempt and for being oblivious to law. As the very same ACIT had passed series of orders reopening assessments in ignorance of legal position, a compilation of judgments on reassessment proceedings should be furnished to the Commissioner to study the same. The position of law regarding the writ remedy is so settled, that it is understood even by the law students

The above observations made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax are highly objectionable and are bordering on contempt. We however, give him the benefit of doubt of being oblivious to law. We had, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2017, after noticing that the very same Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had passed series of order reopening assessments in ignorance of legal position, had requested the learned Standing Counsel to furnish the compilation of judgments of reassessment proceedings to the learned Commissioner to study the same. The position of law regarding the writ remedy is so settled, that it is understood even by the law students

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

Sunil Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: If the AO reopens on the basis of information received from another AO without further inquiry, it means he has proceeded "mechanically" and "without application of mind". If the CIT does not give reasons while according sanction, it implies that he has also not applied his mind. Both render the reopening void (All imp judgements referred)

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT(a), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer

Top