Reassessment reopening upheld on tangible material, with live link between evidence and belief of income escapement.

Reopening under section 147 was upheld where the Assessing Officer relied on Investigation Wing information, bank account analysis, field enquiry, cancellation of VAT registration and a sworn statement linking the assessee to alleged paper concerns issuing accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded showed application of mind before notice under section 148, and the objections were duly considered. It held that the reopening was supported by tangible material, not borrowed satisfaction or mere suspicion, and that a rational connection and live link existed between the material and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The jurisdictional challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 148, was valid on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing, bank account analysis, field enquiry and the statement recorded on oath, and whether the reopening was vitiated by borrowed satisfaction, absence of tangible material, or lack of live link between the material and the belief of escapement of income.

Analysis: The reasons recorded referred to the Investigation Wing report, the nature of transactions in the bank accounts of the two concerns, cancellation of VAT registration, field verification, the statement of Chandresh Vyas and the assessee's link with the entities alleged to be paper concerns providing accommodation entries. The record showed that the Assessing Officer considered the material before issuing notice under section 148 and formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. The objections raised by the assessee were dealt with by the Assessing Officer, and the Tribunal found that the reopening was founded on tangible and credible material, not on mere suspicion or borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also found a rational connection and live link between the material available and the belief recorded for reopening.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid, and the jurisdictional challenge under section 147 was rejected.

---