TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes re-assessment notice citing lack of 'new material' under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer</h3> Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer - [2019] 413 ITR 400 (Del) Issues:1. Legality of the re-assessment notice dated 30.03.2016 under Section 147/148 for A.Y.2009-10.2. Justification of re-assessment based on information received from the investigation wing.3. Disclosure of relevant material facts by the assessee during the original assessment.4. Interpretation of 'new material' leading to income escaping assessment.5. Duty of the assessee in disclosing material facts related to cash deposits.Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of the re-assessment noticeThe petitioner challenged the re-assessment notice, arguing that all necessary information for income computation was provided during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) on 30.11.2011. The notice was based on information from an investigation into a company's bank account activities, alleging that a substantial amount had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that the re-assessment lacked fresh or tangible material justifying it.Issue 2: Justification of re-assessment based on investigationThe Revenue defended the re-assessment, stating it relied on information from the investigation wing, indicating that income of at least &8377;4.36 crores had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2009-10. The investigation report formed the basis of the re-assessment notice. However, the petitioner argued that the vague internet searches and information did not constitute material withheld during the original assessment.Issue 3: Disclosure of relevant material factsThe Court noted that during the original scrutiny assessment, the petitioner had disclosed all relevant material facts, including bank statements, sundry creditors, and detailed business transactions. The petitioner had replied to all queries and provided necessary documents, fulfilling the duty to disclose related material facts.Issue 4: Interpretation of 'new material'The Court emphasized the requirement for 'new material' to justify reassessment, as established in previous judgments. The failure of the Revenue to make further inquiries or seek confirmations regarding specific entries did not warrant reassessment under Section 147/148. The Court highlighted the importance of disclosing material facts by the assessee and conducting thorough inquiries before reassessment.Issue 5: Duty of the assessee in disclosing cash depositsThe Court found the reasoning for reassessment based on substantial cash transactions and unverified accounts to be vague and unjustified. The duty of the assessee to disclose bank statements was fulfilled, and the AO's interpretation of previous years' transactions was deemed irrelevant to the reassessment process. Consequently, the Court quashed the re-assessment notice and all related proceedings.Overall, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling disclosure duties and requiring concrete 'new material' to justify reassessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
