| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 1481 (Pune-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Since AO was held to have rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific, relevant and reliable and assessee had also challenged the same on the ground that CIT erred in law in according approval to the reasons recorded by AO for reassessment, therefore, in view of the elaborate discussion about the factual panorama prevailing in the extant case, submission advanced by the assessee could not be accepted and accordingly, order was upheld and the grounds raised by assessee were dismissed.
|
Reassessment - Validity - Initiation of re-assessment proceedings - AO's jurisdiction to initiate reassessment
AO initiated re-assessment proceedings on the ground that department have carried out enquiries and investigated in this case, wherein the DCIT after obtaining prior approval of the CIT have issued letters under section 133(6) to the investors. Out of 15 letters issued under section 133(6), 9 letters have been received back by the postal department. In 5 cases, letters have been served but there was no response/compliance. There was evidence to show that there was an escapement of income within the meaning of section 147(c). In response to notice, assessee pleaded that return originally filed might be treated as a return filed in response to the notice under section 148. Simultaneously, assessee also pleaded for supplying the certified copy of reasons recorded for reopening. Assessee's objections were disposed of and thereafter the reassessment was taken up. Assessee remained unsuccessful before first appellate authority. Held: ITO acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons which he must record, to believe that by reason of omission of failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings. ITO was held to have rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific, relevant and reliable. Assessee had also challenged that CIT erred in according approval to the reasons recorded by AO for reassessment. In view of the elaborate discussion about the factual panorama prevailing in the extant case, submission advanced by the assessee could not be accepted. Therefore, order was upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
Followed:Raymond Woollen Mills v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 348 (SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1257 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. : 2008-09
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 68
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|