Search Results For: Reopening of assessment


State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: The computation of income is the basic document for making the s. 143(3) assessment. If there is a disclosure in the computation, it leads to the prima facie necessary inference that there is application of mind by the AO. The fact that the AO did not raise specific queries & is silent in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind (Techspan 404 ITR 10(SC) followed, other contra judgements distinguished)

There was also no reason in the present facts for the Assessing Officer to ask any queries in respect of this claim of the petitioner, as the basic document viz. computation of income at note 21 (Assessment Year 2013-14) and note 22 (Assessment Year 2014-15) thereof explained the basis of the claim being made to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Thus, it must necessarily be inferred that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind at the time of passing an assessment order to this particular claim made in the basic document viz. computation of the income by not disallowing it in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act as he was satisfied with the basis of the claim as indicated in that very document. Therefore, where he accepts the claim made, the occasion to ask questions on it will not arise nor does it have to be indicated in the order passed in the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, issuing the impugned notices on the above ground would, prima-facie, amount to a change of opinion

Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the AO reopens the assessment on the incorrect premise that the assessee has not filed a return, the reopening is invalid. The fact that the AO may be justified in the view that income has escaped assessment owing to the capital gains not being computed u/s 50C cannot save the reopening is the reasons do not refer to s. 50C

The Assessing Officer may be correct in pointing out that when the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.50 lakhs but the registering authority has valued the property on the date of sale at Rs.1,18,95,000/for stamp duty calculation, section 50C of the Act would apply, of course, subject to the riders contained therein. However, this is not the cited reason for reopening the assessment

Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 56(2)(vii): Law explained on (i) reopening of assessment by issue of s. 148 notice at the 11th hour and based on "stale" material, (ii) nature of sanction to be accorded by the CIT u/s 151 and (iii) scope of s. 56(2)(vii) and whether difference between 'fair market value' and face value of unquoted shares can be assessed as income. All important judgements referred

When the assessees acquired the shares through allotment, the taxing event, as it were, occurred on account of the differential between what is said to be market value and what was value paid by them. As a result, it is held that the primary obligation to disclose about the acquisition of shares, was not relieved by virtue of the notification under Section 25 (6) of the (now repealed) Companies Act, 1956. It is, therefore, held that prima facie, there is no merit in this argument; it cannot be said that the effect of the exemption notification was to relieve the assessees from their obligation to disclose about the acquisition of the shares, which appears to be the taxing event (on account of the differential between the acquisition cost and the fair market value).

ACIT vs. Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib), 68, 147 Bogus share capital/ premium: Entire law on whether alleged excessive premium charged for allottment of shares and alleged inability to prove genuineness of transaction can be assessed as unexplained cash credit explained in the light of High Court judgements

It was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders, i.e., they are bogus. The Apex Court in a case in this context to the preamended section 68 has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Incometax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit

Sonu Khandelwal vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: S. 150(1) overrides s. 149 but not s. 151. Accordingly, even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority, the requirement of sanction u/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice u/s 147. The failure to obtain sanction renders the reopening invalid

even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority the requirement of sanction U/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice U/s 147 of the Act. Even otherwise from the plain reading of Section 150(1) of the Act, it is clear that it begins with non-obstante clause as far as the limitation provided U/s 149 of the Act and therefore, Section 150(1) has an overriding effect on Section 149 and not over Section 151 of the Act. The requirement of sanction U/s 151 of the Act is in the nature of check and balance and it is a measure against the misuse of power by the assessing authority for assessment or reassessment based the reasons not found satisfactory by the authorities provided U/s 151 of the Act

Prabhat Agarwal vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: The revenue played a subterfuge in trying to cover up its omission and in ante dating the record. The court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner to cause an inquiry to be conducted as to the involvement of the officials or employee in the manipulation of the record, and take strict disciplinary action, according to the concerned rules and regulations. This inquiry should be in regard to the conduct of the concerned AO posted at the time, who issued the notice under Section 147/148 as well as the officers who filed the affidavits in these proceedings

It goes without saying that whilst the “reasons” shown to the court and the petitioner may ipso facto not be faulted, yet the file tells a different story; they were not recorded before the impugned notice was issued. In fact, the revenue played a subterfuge, in trying to cover up its omission, and in ante dating the record, in the attempt to establish that such reasons existed, and this court’s interference was not called for. In these circumstances, this court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner concerned to cause an inquiry to be conducted as to the involvement of the officials or employee in the manipulation of the record in this case, and take strict disciplinary action, according to the concerned rules and regulations. This inquiry should be in regard to the conduct of the concerned AO posted at the time, who issued the notice under Section 147/148 as well as the officers who filed the affidavits in these proceedings. The investigation and consequential action shall be completed within four months

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

Top