TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the Companies Act. For the assessment year 2004-05, the petitioner had filed a return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring 'Nil' income after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The Assessing Officer selected the case for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed on 08.11.2006, in which, the Assessing Officer restricted the petitioner's claim for exemption under Section 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 4.54 lacs instead of Rs. 16.22 lacs claimed by the petitioner. To reopen such scrutiny assessment, the impugned notice came to be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jections by an order dated 25.06.2011. The petitioner, thereupon, raised further objections under letter dated 19.07.2011 and, thereafter, filed the present petition. 4. Taking us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no material on record on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer can form a belief that income of the petitioner-company chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, further that such escapement of income was due to failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Counsel contended that mere report of the investigation wing of the department would not be such information. The Assessing Officer, without verifying the content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed up with the Central Exercise Authority to obtain information on the issue. The allegations were that the directors of the company had claimed rebate of crores of rupees and after coming to light, stopped such activity. From the original file, we notice that the same contains a copy of a complaint from a private individual whose identity presumably for the purpose of confidentiality has been withheld by blanking out the reference of the sender of the letter. This undated letter, which is written to the Director General of Investigation, Ahmedabad, seems to have been inwarded in the department on 05.03.2008. In such letter, the informant has made serious allegations against Shri Jugal Biyani and Shri Rajesh Bansal, two of the directors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148 expires on 31.03.2011." 8. Along with this letter, he also annexed a copy of the aforesaid complaint by the undisclosed person. In this letter thus, the Assistant Director conveyed to the respondent that during investigation pertaining to the said complaint, it was found that there are allegations against the petitioner-company of claiming undue rebates from the Central Excise department and the matter is being followed up with the Central Excise authorities to obtain information on the issue. However, since the issuance of notice for reopening was getting time barred on 31.03.2011, he suggested to the Assessing Officer to take prompt action. It was pursuant to this communication that the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the said complaint against Shri Jugal M. Biyani and Shri Rajesh R Bansal, it was found that there were allegations of the assessee-company having claimed undue rebates from the Central Excise department. This letter was addressed on 28.03.2011. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was getting time barred on 31.03.2011. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, under time pressure. He mechanically issued the notice for reopening relying on these two documents. Neither of these two documents contained any material regarding the irregularities of the assessee-company. The complaint contained allegations of a private citizen. The letter of the Assistant Director contained no further information on the issue of reliability of the allegations made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....require verification, for which, no reliable evidence was submitted by the assessee alongwith the reply. One of the points mentioned was as under: "Hence, the information which is in the possession of the Department is not on any guess work or presumption, and a detailed verification in this regard is absolutely appropriate to find possibility of escapement of income in the particular year." 12. While concluding, he further observed that: "From the above, it is evident that in order to verify the correctness of the income/profit of the business before arriving at the quantum of reduction allowable as claimed, requires examination of books of accounts and other related documents relevant to it. In this context, it is pertinent to no....