INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147 Sction 68, Proviso

Reassessment - Full and true disclosure - Tangible material from DIT (Inv.) about amount of share capital/premium received from entry operator -

Assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 27-10-2008 at income of Rs. 66,17,980. thereafter an information had been received from the office of Director (Inv.)- II, New Delhi that assessee company had obtained accommodation entries of amount totaling to Rs. 90,00,000 during the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07 in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Shri SK Jain Group (entry operator) where search/survey action under section 132/133 had been conducted on 14-9-2010 thus the assessment was reopened under section 147 after issuing notice under section 148. AO was of the opinion that there was as such, reason to believe in terms of section 147 that income to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000 had escaped assessment. CIT(A) upheld the addition.Held: AO had followed the due procedure of law and also had specific information in his possession, received from the DIT(Inv.). which indicated that certain amounts had been received in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Shri SK Jain who were entry operators. The AO had elaborately discussed in the assessment order as to how the amounts received in the form of share capital/share premium etc, had not been properly examined at the time of earlier assessment and also how this information was fresh information and specific in nature, which clearly indicated that there was omission/failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In the present case there was enough evidence and justification with the AO to reopen the assessment beyond period of four years. It has been widely held by the Courts that it is not necessary to prove beyond doubt that income had escaped assessment and it was sufficient that the AO had recorded his reasons and followed the due procedure of law for reopening of the assessment. In view of factual matrix of the present case, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the AO that this was a fit case for reopening of the assessment and accordingly, the contentions and Grounds of the appellant were therefore, dismissed.

Followed:Rajat Import Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 135 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 943 (Del-HC), AGR Investments (2011) 333 ITR 146 (Del) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 812 (Del-HC) and Contel Medicare System (2012) 349 ITR 649 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 5 (Del-HC). Relied:A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) : 1958 TaxPub(DT) 195 (SC), CIT v. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) : 1964 TaxPub(DT) 331 (SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) : 1969 TaxPub(DT) 124 (SC), Yadu Hari Dalmia v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (Del) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1088 (Del-HC), CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) : 1971 TaxPub(DT) 375 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 85 (SC) : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1173 (SC) and Somnath Maini v. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 414 (P&H) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 387 (P&H-HC).

REFERRED : S.S.P. Aviation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 346 ITR 177 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2131 (Del-HC), Singad Technical Education Society v. Asstt.CIT (2011) 57 DTR 241 (Pune-Trib.) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2191 (Pune-Trib), LMJ International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2008) 119 TTJ 214 (Kol-Trib) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1401 (Kol-Trib), CIT v. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC), (2012) 77 DTR 396 (Del) (FB) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2966 (Del-HC), CIT v. Usha International Ltd. Kalwa Devadattam v. UOI (1963) 49 ITR 165, 174 (SC) : 1963 TaxPub(DT) 462 (SC), CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) : 1971 TaxPub(DT) 375 (SC), CIT v Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349, 360-1 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 323 (SC), Durga Prasad Goyal v. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr.) (SB) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1041 (Asr-Trib), Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 769 (Raj) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0243 (Raj-HC) Shiv Prasad Agarwal v. ITO (1996) 85 Taxman 243 (Cal.) (AT) CIT v. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana (1994) 206 ITR 715 (Raj.) : 1994 TaxPub(DT) 599 (Raj-HC), GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)., (2001) 249 ITR 554 (SC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 794 (SC), Vijay Kumar Sharma (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1196 (SC), Tin Box Co. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1130 (SC), Kishan Chand Chela Ram, CIT v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) : 1967 TaxPub(DT) 323 (SC), CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1946 (Del-HC), CIT v. KansalFincap (P.) Ltd. 2013-TIOL-814-HC-Del-IT, dated 4-10-2013, Special Leave Petition No. CC. 375/2008, dated 21-1-2008 in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 261 (SC), CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 296 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 409 (Del-HC), Mod Creation (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 3314 (Del-HC), , CIT v. Fair Finvest (P.) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 143 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 912 (Del-HC), , CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. (2013) 96 DTR 299 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1319 (Del-HC), , CIT v. Nipuan Auto Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 89 DTR 342 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1936 (Del-HC) and CIT v. CNR Leading Sofiech (P.) Ltd. 2013-TIOL-516-ITAT-Del.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT