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>Tax Reopening Notices Overturned Due to Insufficient Reasons; Labeled as Fishing Inquiry.</h1> <h3>Mrs. Neetu M. Chandaliya, Mr. Pramod M. Chandaliya, Mrs. Indira S. Chandaliya, Mr. Manish S. Chandaliya, Mr. Ankit P. Chandaliya, Mr. Manoj Shantilal Chandaliya (HUF), Priti Shantilal Chandaliya (HUF), Mrs. Shweta M. Chandaliya, Mr. Sandeep S. Chandaliya (HUF), Mrs. Vijaya P. Chandaliya, Versus Income Tax Officer – 14 (2) (3),</h3> Mrs. Neetu M. Chandaliya, Mr. Pramod M. Chandaliya, Mrs. Indira S. Chandaliya, Mr. Manish S. Chandaliya, Mr. Ankit P. Chandaliya, Mr. Manoj Shantilal ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Adequacy and relevance of the 'reason to believe' for issuing notice under Section 148.3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) in forming the belief that income has escaped assessment.Summary:1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioners challenged the reopening of their assessments for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, arguing that the notices issued under Section 148 were based on inadequate grounds. The court noted that the returns of income were processed under Section 143(1) but no intimation was served on the petitioners. The notices for reopening were issued six days before the expiry of the limitation period, based on a letter from the DCIT indicating cash deposits in the petitioners' bank accounts.2. Adequacy and relevance of the 'reason to believe' for issuing notice under Section 148:The petitioners contended that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were more indicative of suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. They argued that the AO did not have any tangible material to conclude that there was an escapement of income. The court emphasized that the reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief and not merely be a cause for suspicion.3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) in forming the belief that income has escaped assessment:The court found that the AO had not applied his mind independently and had issued the reopening notices based on information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). The court reiterated that the AO must issue the reopening notice based on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. The court observed that the reasons recorded were sketchy and indicative of a fishing inquiry rather than a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the reasons recorded did not disclose any application of mind by the AO and were insufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The reopening notices dated 25th March 2014 and the consequential orders rejecting the objections were set aside. The petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
TaxTMI 