Sunil Gavaskar vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02, 2002-03
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 147: If the AO objects to the audit objection, he cannot have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is not entitled to reopen the assessment

The AO recorded reasons pursuant to an audit objection and reopened assessee’s assessment. However, the AO replied to the audit objection stating that the issue was debatable in nature. The AO replied that in principle the objections raised by the audit are not acceptable. However, still the AO proceeded to reopen the assessment. The Tribunal held that once the AO himself disagreed with the audit objections, reopening could not be done. The requirement of law for reopening of the case is that the AO should be in a position to form a belief about escapement of income. Although, it is true that at the stage of reopening, the belief need not be conclusive, but it is equally expected that the position of law should be clear in the mind of the AO, at least prima–facie. The belief need not be conclusive but it should be firm and clear. No belief can be formed out of confusion and doubtful thoughts.

One comment on “Sunil Gavaskar vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  1. gopal nathani says:

    good judgement though but on merits it does not take into account coordinate bench decision of dilip k sheth case (5ITR Trib 581) where mumbai bench held that a purposive approach has to be adopted in interpreting the provisions of section 80RR. by holding therefore that a sportsman would also include a former sportsman too in wikipedia way and therefore to hold that his incomes from commentary, column writing etc. post retirement too would be exempt may be kind of streching it beyond legislative intent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *