| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8321 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147, Proviso
For assumption of jurisdiction, in the reasons recorded by AO for reopening AO had stated that assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Apparently, AO had drawn reference to proviso to section 147 which was not applicable in the instant case original return so filed by assessee was processed under section 143(1) and not under section 143(3) and thus, proviso to section 147 and condition so specified therein could not be invoked to invoke assumption of jurisdiction under section 147.
|
Reassessment - Notice issued beyond four years - Allegation of failure to disclose full and true material facts necessary for assessment - Applicability of proviso to section 147--Original return was processed under section 143(1) and not under section 143(3)
AO on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv.) reopened assessment after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the ground that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the nature of loan/advance purchase bill and thus failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. In the reassessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 AO made addition on account of unexplained share capital.Held: For assumption of jurisdiction, in the reasons so recorded by AO for reopening, AO had stated that assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Apparently, AO has drawn reference to proviso to section 147 which was not applicable in the instant case as original return so filed by assessee was processed under section 143(1) and not under section 143(3) and thus, proviso to section 147 and condition so specified therein could not be invoked to invoke assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. Further, in the reasons so recorded by AO, it had been stated that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the nature of loan/advance/purchase bill and, therefore, making of addition on account of unexplained share capital reflected non-application of mind on AO's part and accordingly, reassessment proceedings were set aside as invalid.
Supported by:Pr. CIT v. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1297 of 2015] Mumbai HC vide Order dated 16-4-2018) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2370 (Bom-HC), Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 566 & 567/JP/2018, Order dated 30-1-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1695 (Jp-Trib), Merta Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 516/JP/16 Order dt. 11-5-2018] and Meta Plast Engineering Pvt. Ltd v. ITO [ITA No. 5780/Del/2014 Order dt.06-4-2018].
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|