2020 (2) TMI 1144 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Income Tax assessment, remands export sales suppression case for further verification

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4 (2), Kolkata Versus M/s. Narbheram Vishram And (Vice-Versa)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4 (2), Kolkata Versus M/s. Narbheram Vishram And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment made under section 147/143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 2,93,18,510/- on account of alleged suppression of export sale.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Assessment Made Under Section 147/143(3)/153A:The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section 147/143(3)/153A, arguing that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid as it was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected this contention, stating that the reopening was based on fresh tangible material from the Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s report, which constituted credible information for the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the Assessing Officer had a live and direct nexus with the information in the report and that the statutory requirement in terms of the first proviso to section 147 was satisfied. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, affirming the validity of the assessment.2. Addition of Rs. 2,93,18,510/- on Account of Alleged Suppression of Export Sale:The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,93,18,510/- to the assessee’s total income, alleging suppression of export sales based on a discrepancy in the quantity of iron ore exported as reported by Paradeep Port Trust and the quantity shown in the assessee’s books. The ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted this addition, reasoning that the figures from Paradeep Port Trust were not reliable and that the Assessing Officer had selectively used the figures to suit his convenience. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that the production figures of iron ore as disclosed in the assessee’s audited books were accepted by the Assessing Officer, and there was no evidence of unreported production.The Tribunal, however, found that the explanation provided by the assessee was insufficient to reconcile the difference of 8,000 Metric Ton in export quantity. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to obtain relevant details from Paradeep Port Trust to reconcile the discrepancy. Since the assessee failed to satisfactorily discharge this onus, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination, giving the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its explanation regarding the difference in export quantity.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objection of the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment, affirming that the reopening of the assessment was in accordance with the law. On the issue of the addition of Rs. 2,93,18,510/- for alleged suppression of export sales, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification, thereby treating the Revenue’s appeal as allowed for statistical purposes.