TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that contravention of Section 269SS by the assessee cannot be a reason for re-opening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act?" Section 269SS is as follows: "269SS. Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits and specified sum. No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984 , take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if,- (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the year 1992-93 was reopened by the Income Tax department. A notice under Section 148 issued by the department to the respondent assessee dated 31st March, 2001 asking them to explain why for the above deposit in gross violation of Section 269SS, the case of the said earlier assessment year 1992-93 should not be reopened under Section 147. The allegation against the assessee was that the deposits collected during the assessment year 1992-93 were also unexplained. The assessee according to the department had not discharged its obligations under Section 68 read with 269SS of the said Act. The stand of the department was justified by recourse to the explanation to Section 37 which laid down that any expenditure incurred by an assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1992-93 of which assessment was completed on 28th March, 1995. In the assessment year 1997-98 the revenue found some discrepancy in the account of the assessee with regard to the credits received or the cash receipts, compelling them to start Section 147/148 proceedings against the assessee, in respect of the assessment year 1992-93. The question is: Could they do so? In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. Vs. Income-Tax Officer & Anr. reported in 203 ITR 456, the Income Tax Department received information that the assesssee did not receive any loan but merely the authority from an associate to show Rs. 50,000/- as loan received and disallowed the deduction on account of interest payable on such loan after initiating proceeding under Section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors. Vs. Sarvamangla Properties reported in 257 ITR 722 where the question was whether the assessee had disclosed their liability of Rs. 35 lakhs towards the banks to the income tax officer. The income tax department knew that the assessee was paying Rs. 17,500 per month to the bank after an interim order dated 29th April, 1957 in the suit between the bank and the assessee. Thereafter, a dispute arose whether the sum was being repaid as principal or interest. The bank claimed it was being repaid as principal whereas the assessee said that it was interest. The bank started Section 147/148 proceeding against the assessee alleging suppression. The division bench discharged the assessee from this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re was no concealment of income and at another point of time say, otherwise. There was no scope of change of opinion. The income tax department cannot presume something to have happened five years ago just because in the assessment year 1997-98 the assessee failed to explain its source of fund under Section 68 and cash fund under Section 269SS. It did not mean that it indulged in similar activity in the previous year 1992-93. For all those reasons we feel that the Tribunal was absolutely right in dismissing the appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Hence this appeal is disposed of by answering the question of law in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The appeal (ITA 454 of 2008) is thus allowed. No order as to costs. ITA ....