TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner is engaged in the business of civil construction and operation of petrol pumps who submitted his return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 on 30.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 70,95,420/-. The same was taken up for scrutiny assessment and it was finalised in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act making some additions/deletions, in respect of which there was no grievance. The proceedings were however sought to be re-opened by issuing notice under Section 148(2) read with Section 147 of the Act and later, an order was passed on 22.12.2018 treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 3.73 crores from M/s. Dreamland Impex Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 in the hands of the Petitioner. This was subjected to challenge by filing a statutory appeal and it is stated that the same is pending before the appellate authority. 3. While so, a fresh notice for re-assessment was issued on 29.03.2019 pointing out that the Assessing Officer (for short 'the AO') had reason to believe that some portion of the income had still escaped the assessment. The Petitioner sought for the reasons which is stated as supplied on 16.04.2019. On getti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h reference to the materials produced, adding that such deposits were made by the Petitioner in the regular course of business and corresponding withdrawals also may be there and hence, it cannot be considered as income escaped from any assessment. 6. The learned counsel further points out that the provision i.e. Section 147 of the Act envisages re-assessment in respect of three different stages. The first one is upto a period of four years where there is a free hand for the Respondent. But once it is beyond four years and within six years, the alleged escape of income should be due to non-disclosure and such other instances as mentioned therein. Once it goes beyond six years, it becomes an extraordinary circumstance with reference to the foreign assets etc. The picture becomes more clear from the first proviso to the aforesaid section, from which it is revealed that there has to be failure on the part of the Petitioner/Assessee with regard to the full disclosure of the facts. This aspect as to the failure on the part of the Assessee is also referred to by the learned Single Judge. Even though, the learned Single Judge has referred to the 'reason to believe' for re-openin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s beyond four years and within six years, as involved in the instant case. If it is coming within the said slot, the specific requirements with reference to the non-disclosure of full details has to be established insofar as the particulars with regard to deposit of Rs. 1.53 Crores in the bank account over a period of time has already been disclosed. Since it is supported by the books of accounts, it is never a new material to have acted upon by the AO for causing any re-assessment under Section 147 of the Act. When the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the challenge after framing the questions in paragraph 16, unfortunately, the suppression part has been given a 'go bye', though there is an observation in paragraph 21 to the effect that all that this Court can see, verify or scrutinize is as to whether the reasons assigned are not vague, indefinite or without any basis etc. 8. It is pointed out with reference to the materials produced that deposits in the bank came over a period of time and all those particulars were furnished before the AO, which never amounts to any new material and hence, it was never a fit case for the second re-assessment. What is being don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of income from tax which led to the notice for re-assessment. The 'reason to believe' of the AO is sufficient and adequacy of the reason is not a matter which is to be considered by this Court. Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Another v. Income Tax Officer & Another; {(1993) 4 SCC 77, paragraphs 24, 25 and 26} where also similar plea was raised from the part of the Assessee. In paragraph 25, it has been specifically observed by the Apex Court that the AO can start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of these facts; under which circumstance it will not be a mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available, but acting on fresh information. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court on Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Centre Circle XI, Range Bombay & Others; {(2008) 14 SCC 218, paragraph 3} ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed income' is not a matter discussed by the learned Single Judge, adding that the proceedings were being pursued only on the basis of suspicion which cannot take the place of 'reason to believe'. The AO has not stated anything as to what is not disclosed. The ruling rendered by the Delhi High Court, reported in Bharti Infratel Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Others; {(2019) 411 ITR 403 (Delhi)} is sought to be pressed in, contending that Explanation (1) to Section 147 of the Act is having only a limited operation. 14. The scope of the said Explanation is sought to be asserted by the learned counsel for the Revenue with reference to the specific observation made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. (supra). The learned counsel submits that though, some materials were submitted by the Appellant-Assessee, it did not completely reveal the deposit of Rs. 1.53 Crores; despite the several opportunities granted. Different cash flow statements were being submitted on different occasions by the Appellant- Assessee and this aspect has been specifically discussed by the AO while passing the a....