The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3032 (Del-Trib) : (2020) 080 ITR (Trib) 0699

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

Where assessee's name was appearing along with details of the parties from whom assessee had made purchases which were found to be Hawala operator providing accommodation bogus bills and AO after receiving the information has independently applied his mind and recorded his reason to believe as to why such a purchase was not genuine, therefore, there was no infirmity in the jurisdiction accorded under section 147.

Reassessment - Reason to believe - Assessee being engaged in bogus purchases - AO applied his mind to fact of case

Assessee's case was reopened under section 148 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing wherein it was mentioned that VAT Department had forwarded the details of non-genuine/bogus bill availed by the assessee. In the information, it was mentioned that assessee had taken bogus bill from M/s. S. Based on this information, assessee's case was reopened under section 147 and accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued. AO asked assessee as to why purchase made from M/s. S be not treated as bogus. AO however did not find the reason filed by assessee as valid and held that purchase was bogus and added the same to the income of assessee. Held: There was no merits in contention of assessee for the reason that there was a categorical information wherein assessee's name was appearing along with details of the parties from whom assessee had made purchases which were found to be Hawala operator providing accommodation bogus bills. AO after receiving the information has independently applied his mind and recorded his reason to believe as to why such a purchase was not genuine. Thus, there was no infirmity in the jurisdiction accorded under section 147.

Relied:Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. v. ITO & Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1453 (SC) PR. CIT v. Nandkishor Huaschand Jalan (2019) 412 ITR 357 (Guj.) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3693 (Guj-HC) PCIT v. SNG Developers Limited (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3140 (Del-HC) CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1852 (Guj-HC)Followed:CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (561) (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC)

REFERRED : CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) : 1978 TaxPub(DT) 0643 (Bom-HC) AC1T v. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Limited (2014) 162 TTJ 568 Gau) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1761 (Gau-Trib) Nanubhai D. Desai v. ACIT (2014) 162 TTJ (Ahd.)(SB) 673 (Ahd) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2375 (Ahd-Trib).

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2011-12

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 145

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT