| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7284 (Chen-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147 Section 148
AO had perused material which had come to his knowledge and formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment for the failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts which were necessary for assessment, however, addition made was to be deleted due to sufficiency of evidences produced by assessee.
|
Reassessment - Full and true disclosure - Tangible material - No evidence to establish addition
Assessment was reopened based on creditable information received from the Dy. CIT, Kolkata that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by one M/s. STL (P) Ltd. and this information constitutes 'new tangible' information enabling the AO to form reason to believe that income was escaped assessment. It was submitted that sufficiency or correctness of the material was not to be seen at the stage of reopening of the assessment. Held: From the perusal of reasons recorded, it was clear that AO had perused the material placed and perused the materials received from Dy. CIT, Kolkatta and thereupon considering all the materials formed belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It could not be said that the AO had initiated reassessment proceedings on the borrowed satisfaction of Dy. CIT, Kolkata. From the reasons recorded, it was clear that AO had perused the material which had come to his knowledge and formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment for the failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts which were necessary for assessment.information received from Dy. CIT, Kolkata suggested that payment was made to M/s. STL (P) Ltd. Therefore, the information received from Dy. CIT, Kolkata suggested that payment made to M/s. STL (P) Ltd. was bogus, the AO formed belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly initiated reassessment proceedings. Therefore Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment. In the present case, admittedly, there is no corroborative evidence brought by the AO in support of the information received from Dy. CIT, Kolkata. In the absence of such corroborative materials addition cannot be sustained, in the backdrop of legal position discussed above. Therefore, grounds of appeal challenging the deletion of addition of payment made to M/s. STL (P) Ltd. were dismissed.
Relied:CIT v. A.L. Lalpuria Construction (P) Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 384 (Raj) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 393 (Raj-HC), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC), R.W. Promotions (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 54 (Bom) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2980 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 281 (Guj) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1670 (Guj-HC), CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 159 Taxman 306 (Del) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 518 (Del-HC), CIT v. Geetanjali Education Society (2008) 174 Taxman 440 (Raj) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2226 (Raj-HC) and Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour (partly).
A.Y. : 2011-12 to 2014-15
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147 Section 148
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|