TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... defended the impugned order and consequent relief granted to the assessee on merits. The ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that the issue in hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases vide order dated 08.02.2018 in ITA No.1517/Chny/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 & dated 25.11.2016 in ITA No.2077/Mds./2016 for assessment year 2011-12. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 08.02.2018 for assessment year 2012-13 for ready reference and analysis. "1. This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Chennai [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.71/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 dated 28.03.2017 against the order passed by the ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Chennai [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 31.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue to be decided in the appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made in respect of payment of Rs. 1,58,56,741/- made to retired partners claimed by the assessee on account of diversion of income by over-riding title. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Sec. 40(ba), clauses(i) & (ii) of 40(b) allow deduction of expenditure only if remuneration is payable to any partner of the firm and not a retired partner. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payments made to retired partners are not diversion of income on account of overriding title but mere application of income on account of self imposed obligations. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the doctrine of diversion of income by reason of overriding title applies only in cases where the income never reaches the assessee as his income. Whereas in the instant case the assessee had received the income and diverted it and therefore it was mere application of income. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored. 4. The ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ajority of partners as per Para 20 of the said decision, whereas, in C.C.Chokshi & Co. case, it was not possible and there is no such enabling covenant which allows the remaining partners to carry on business without making payment to retired partners. These two clinching distinguishing features advances the case of the assessee. We find from the perusal of the partnership agreement of the assessee herein, the continuing partners cannot carry on business without making the payment to retired partners. Similarly there is no clause in the partnership agreement of the assessee which enables the continuing partners to carry on the business with majority partners consent. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of S.B.Billimoria is factually distinguishable. We hold that the issue under dispute is now settled by the two decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court supra and respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed." 3.1 We find that on identical issue /facts with respect to payment made to retired partners that too in the case of the assessee the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iding title in the partnership deed. The Assessing Officer called for the details and examined the same and held that the payment is an application of income and brought to tax. The assessee during the assessment proceedings alternately claimed that the payment made to the retired partners as an expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the alternate claim of the assessee also holding that the payment made to the retired partners is not expenditure to carry on the business but it was a gratuitous payment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A). The Id. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer both on diversion of income by overriding title as well as the revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. On behalf of the assessee, Senior Counsel, Shri Percy J. Pardiwala appeared and presented the case. In his argument, the Senior Counsel stated that the assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants rendering auditing, tax advisory and compliance as well as financial advisory services to its clients. The partners o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... representatives, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the proportionate monthly remuneration under clause 9.a to the extent not drawn by the Partner up to the date of retirement, or death as the-case may be. Right to receive payments on retirement or death m. In addition to the amounts, if any, payable, as provided in the preceding clauses 10.k and 10.1 above, * a retired/retiring Partner of the Firm who became a Partner in the Firm or Participating Firms on or before 31 March 2010 or the spouse or nominee of such deceased Partner; or * a retired! retiring Partner of the Legacy Firm in respect of which the liability thereof has been taken over by this Firm or the spouse or nominee of such deceased Partner; as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive further sums determined on the basis specified in clause 1 0.n in respect of the following: i) amounts bills, but not received, work completed, but not billed, and work partly completed and not billed as at the date of death or retirement, as the case may be, having regard to the fact that the Partnership follows the cash system of accounting. ii) In consideration of the Retiring Partner or the spouse ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars than the average annual Amount Received in the Previous Year shall be computed with reference to completed financial years before the date of retirement as a Partner. The absolute amount referred to above will be indexed as per the Cost Inflation Index specified in section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or will be increased every year at the simple rate of 5% per annum, whichever is higher. The payments will be made on a monthly basis. The payments under this clause will restricted to Rs. 60 lakhs per annum and this limit will be indexed as per the Cost Inflation Index specified in section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the base year for the indexation being 2007- 08 or increased every year at the simple rate of 5% per annum, whichever is higher. Payments as per this clause shall be made in case any Partner retires on becoming permanently incapacitated from continuing as Partner or dies. In such case the Qualifying Period will not be considered. In case of death of a Partner or retirement of a Partner due to incapacity before completion of three years as a Partner, then the average annual amount received in the previous year would be worked out with reference to the Amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the partnership deed, the same is payable to the retired partners and therefore, it is not income of the assessee-firm. The nature of application is such that the same payable to the retired partners cannot be said to be part of the assessee's income. He argued that the sums paid to the retiring partners was related to the work carried on by the partners during their service but the bills not raised, work completed but bills not raised and work partly completed and not billed etc. The assessee-firm is carrying on the business in the name of Deloitte Haskins & Sells. In nutshell, it is a consideration to the retired partners to continue the same business in the same line with the new partners and to retain the retired partners to support competitiveness on their own and not to join a new firm which is a threat to the existing firm and to settle the pending bills relating to the income earned by them as a partner during their tenure in the partnership-firm. Further the Senior Counsel further submitted that the method and manner of payment is determined as per clause 10(m) of the partnership deed which is reproduced in the earlier paragraph. 10. Referring to the decision of 1T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obligation after such income reaches the assessee, the same consequence in law, does not follow. It is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion of one's own income, which has been received and is since applied. The first is a case in which the income never reaches the assessee, who even if he were to collect it, does so, not as part of his income, but for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable" This proposition still holds good even today. Let us now see whether the facts in the case satisfies the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court" 9. For proper appropriation. Clause 22 of the Partnership deed of the assessee-firm is reproduced hereunder: 22 it is agreed that in addition to the amounts, it any, payable as provided in the preceding clause, namely clause 21, a retiring partner or the legal representative of a deceased partner as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive the further sum speared in clause 23, in respect of the following: (a) (I) amounts billed, but not received, (ii) work completed, but not billed, and (iii)work partly compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estricting themselves from engaging in any gain lvi occupation or in the practice of the profession of accountancy in India after such retirement which is in competition with that of the assessee. Thus, it is clear that the amounts to be paid under Clause 22 are in lieu o their services rendered already to the firm and for restraining themselves to carry on any competing profession. Thus, what is being paid is expenditure necessary for earning the income. 12. It is therefore clear that the assessee is obliged to pay the amount computed under clause 23 before distribution of the same under Clause 28 of the partnership-Deed and it cannot be said to be an application of the income by the assessee firm. As under this obligation the income is diverted before it reaches the assessee it is deductible. The assessee is in fact in the position of a collector of income on behalf of the persons to whom it is payable and is only paying the amount subsequently. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR are not applicable to the facts of the case." 12. The Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of 1TAT Mumbai in the case of M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co for the assessment years 200-01 to 2001....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profession, along with the clientele ad the attendant rights of the firm. The contribution made by the surviving partner, during his association with the firm, in increasing the future income earned as discussed in clause 10 of the partnership deed. The determination of the payment is calculated as per clause 10(n) of the partnership deed. The clauses of the partnership deed are identical to that of the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co. (supra). 15. The Id. DR's contention is that the payment to retired partners is an 'application of income'. When the partnership deed specifies that the payment made to the retiring partner is with regard to the work done by them during the tenure as a partner and towards the settlement of their income for the work done and to allow the partnership firm to continue its business, the payment cannot be held as an application of income or gratuitous payment. We therefore respectfully following the decision of Coordinate bench of 1TAT Mumbai in the case of the associate concern of the assessee, M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co. (supra), hold that the payment is a diversion by overriding title and cannot be included in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income and not offering the income on receipt basis leads to difference of income recognition and contradictory stand to the principles of accounting. Further, the Id. DR also argued that the assessee was accounting the expenditure on cash basis, which resulted in mismatch frequently. 27. On the other hand, the Id. AR submitted that the assessee has disclosed advances of 64,39,989/- at the end of financial year 2010-11. The said advances represented advances received from clients on account of professional fees. The assessee is following cash system of accounting and the bills are raised as and when the services are rendered. No professional charges are received in advance, therefore, the same cannot take the character of income unless the invoices are raised and services are rendered. In exceptional cases, the assessee-firm received advances from clients before rendering such services. Such advances are kept in advance account. The advance received from client is transferred to professional fee account on completion of service. The assessee further submitted that the advance is a very small amount as compared to the aggregate professional fees. Apart from the above, alter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid order in the case of the assessee itself for ay 2011-12, the Tribunal has deliberated upon identical issue and considering the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goel 197 Taxmann 375 (Del) and arguments from both sides including the decision in the case of A.F.Ferguson & Co. (ITA No.779/M/04 dated 30.01.2008), another decision from Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Tractors Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd. in 234 ITR 10, affirmed the stand of the ld.CIT(A). No contrary facts were brought to our notice by either side and more specifically by the Revenue, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A). 4.3 Our above conclusion will also cover the remaining appeals of the Revenue on identical issue. 5. Now we shall take up the Cross objections of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 (C.O.No.47/Chny/2018), the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that there was no fresh material /evidence with the ld.A.O and the reopening was made merely on change of opinion and it was merely due to the reason to meet out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. Explanation 1.-Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely :- (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax ; (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings of reassessment u/s 148. Our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344 ITR 358 (P & H) and Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs CIT (2010) Tax LR 476 (Del.) and V. Lakshmi Reddy vs ITO (2011) 196 taxman 78 (Mad.). The provision of the Act is very much clear as with effect from 01/04/1989, the Assessing Officer has wide powers to initiate proceedings of reopening. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Abdul Khadar Ahmad (2006) 156 taxman 206 (Kerala) even went to the extent so long as the AO has independently applied his mind to all the relevant aspect and has arrived to a belief the reopening cannot be said to be invalid. 5.3. We are aware that "mere change of opinion" cannot form the basis of reopening when the necessary facts were fully and truly disclosed by the assessee in that situation, the ITO is not entitled to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion. However, powers under amended provision are wide enough where there is a reasonable belief with the Assessing Officer, that income has escaped assessment, because the powers with effect from 01/04/1989 are contextually different and the cumulative cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief is needed and not a conclusive finding of facts. Identical ratio was laid down in Brijmohan Agrawal vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400, 405 (All.) and Ratnachudaman S. Utnal vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC). 5.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, "reason to believe" is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer is required to act, not on mere suspicion, but on direct or circumstantial evidence. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings by the Assessing Officer, the reopening of the assessment was held to be valid. In another case in Girilal & Co. v. S.L. Meena, ITO, (2008) 300 ITR 432 (Bom), held that in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court the petitioner must also make out a case that no part of the relevant material had been kept out from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. Thereassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 5.8. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reassessment. It goes without saying that for the purpose of making the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall have to confront the petitioner with the entire material in his possession on the basis of which he proposes to make the additions. In Punjab Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2004) 267 ITR 779, 781-82 (P & H), where depreciation was allowed to the assessee, who was engaged in the business of financing of vehicles and consumer durables on 'hire-purchase basis' as well as on 'lease/rent basis', a reassessment notice issued after four years has been held not to suffer from any illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned by it. 5.11. In Jawand Sons v. CIT(A), (2010) 326 ITR 39 (P & H), in the initial assessment, the benefit of deduction of the duty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of failure on the part of the petitionerassessee to disclose true and full facts, income had been grossly under assessed, reassessment proceedings were held validly initiated. 5.14. In the case of Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India, (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 (Pat), where the material evidence for the purpose of reopening of the assessment already completed has been brought to the notice of the authority during the course of enquiry. The notice was held to be valid by the Hon'ble High Court. In the case of Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP), where the need to issue notice arose due to noticing of vast difference in value of properties disclosed by the assessee and that of the report of the Valuation Officer and the reasons that led to the issue of the notice were duly recorded and the same were also adequate and based on relevant facts and material, initiation was upheld. In Triple A Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 109, 110-11 (MP), where the notice was issued after recording reasons in that regard, initiation was upheld. 5.15. Likewise, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Add/. CIT, (2002) 257 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 147 read with section 148 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was legal and in accordance with law. 5.17. Likewise, in the case of Sunil Kumar lain: Suresh Chandra lain v. ITO, (2006) 284 ITR 626 (All), notwithstanding the fact that the amount had been assessed to tax in the hands of P, he had taken a stand that the amount did not belong to him and instead belonged to Suresh chandra. Thus, it was not clear as to in whose hands the amount in question had to be assessed. The ITO was justified in taking proceedings under section 147 for assessing the amounts in the hands of the petitioners according to the claim made by the petitioners. Likewise, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Dr. Sadique Ummer,(2010) 322 ITR 602 (Ker), where, the Assessing Officer collected further information to complete the reassessments which was also permissible under the Act. The finding of the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal, that the Assessing Officer had no material to believe that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 131 would not make the reassessment invalid. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Indo Marine Agencies (Kerala) P. Ltd., (2005) 279 ITR 372 (Ker), held that the entry would amount to an order under section 144. The mere fact that it was not communicated to the assessee would not make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the timelimit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of specific provision in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, invalidating proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer, the action taken by him applying the then existing law could not be said to be invalid. 5.20. Likewise, in CIT v. S.R. Talwar, (2008) 305 ITR 286 (All), the factum of taking advances o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Valuer's Report constituted material for entertaining a belief of escaped income in the years under consideration. The reassessment proceeding was held to be valid. 5.22. In Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT, (2005) 276 ITR 549 (Ori), there being a substantial difference between the figures of liabilities towards sundry creditors in the party ledgers of the assessee-firm and the figures of liabilities towards sundry creditors in the balance-sheet of the assessee-firm for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. These materials had a direct link and nexus for formation of a belief by the Assessing Officer that income of the assessee-firm had escaped assessment because of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In the case of CIT v. Best Wood Industries & Saw Mills, (2011) 331 ITR 63 (Ker), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction under section 147 and both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that so far as the reassessments related to assessment of unexplained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash [(2013) 353 ITR 158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon'ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uly and fully all facts. [Para 7] Section 147 provides inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income. Proviso to section 147 of course requires that where the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on part of the assessee to make return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. In this context, it is well settled that the requirement of full and true disclosure on part of the assessee is not confined to filing of return alone but would continue all throughout during the assessment proceedings also. In this context, the materials on record would suggest that the Assessing Officer had received fresh inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h material is found to be prima facie untrue and disclosures not truthful. Earlier scrutiny or examination on the basis of such disclosures or materials would not debar a fresh assessment. Each individual case of this nature is bound to have slight difference in facts. [Para 11] The next contention that the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate any material enabling him to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is fallacious. The Assessing Officer recorded detailed reasons pointing out the material available which had a live link with formation of belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. At this stage, as is often repeated, one would not go into sufficiency of such reasons. [Para 13] Section 68 as is well known, provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. That the share application money received by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) (para 13) IV. Pr. CIT v. Gokul Ceramics [2016] 241 Taxman 1/71 taxmann.com 341 (Guj.) (para 16) And distinguished the following decisions i. Allied Strips Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 424/69 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) (para 11) ii. Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 186/46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) (para 11) The Hon'ble High Court while upholding the validity of reopening also considered following decision, which were referred by both sides- I. Allied Strips Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 424/69 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) (para 5), II. Harikrishan Sunderlal Virmani v. Dy. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) (para 5), III. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd.v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) (para 6), IV. Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 186/46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) (para 6), V. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82/249 Taxman 568 (Guj.) (para 6), VI. Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [Sp. Civil Application No. 18921 of 2017, dated 12-2-2018] (para 12), VII. Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) (para 13) and VIII. Pr. CIT v. G....