Asset Reconstruction Company India Pvt. Ltd. v Dy.CIT (2020) 424 ITR 715 (Bom) ( HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Purchasing non-performing asset from Bank and receiving payment -Alleged bogus entry provider – Reasons neither supported by an affidavit or oral submission — Notice is held go be invalid . [ S. 148 ]

The assessee is  engaged in the business of securitisation and asset reconstruction and acted as trustees for the non-performing financial assets acquired from various banks and financial institutions.  The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act  . After a period of four years, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 .  He recorded reasons that he had received information from the Investigation Wing that SCS was a main person who was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries through several companies controlled by him, that it was found that the assessee had entered into transactions with A, that the assessee had purchased non-performing assets of A from a bank in the year 2009, that against this A had paid a sum of Rs. 2.70 crores to the assessee, that A was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries at the instance of SCS and that on the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer was prima facie of the view that the assessee had dealings with A which inturn had indulged in dealing with various accommodation entries and therefore, income chargeable to tax of Rs. 2.70 crores had escaped assessment. The objections raised by the assessee were rejected. On a writ allowing the  petition the Court held that  the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not provide the live link to the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee having purchased the non-performing assets from the bank had received the payment of Rs. 2.70 crores from A. This had nothing to do with the alleged dubious dealings of A at the instance of SCS the bogus entry provider. The very formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee had escaped assessment lacked validity.(AY.2011-12)