TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment was subsequently reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information available in Justice M.B. Shah Commission's report on illegal mining received from the office of DGIT (Investigation), which revealed that the assessee-firm had understated its actual production of quantity of iron ore for the year under consideration to the extent of 10,761 Metric Ton valued at Rs. 2,79,29,422/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued a notice under section 148 on 17.02.2015 after recording the reasons. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the difference in the production of iron ore as allegedly pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the audited account was due to inter-grouping error. It was also submitted that the production of iron ore as shown in Shah Commission's report was erroneous. In order to verify this aspect, a notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer to the Manager of Paradeep Port Trust through which the iron ore was exported by the assessee. As per the reply received by the Assessing Officer from Paradeep Port Trust, total quantity of iron ore exported by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntended that the Ld AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction in this case under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has been further contended that the impugned Notice issued by the Ld AO under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12th March, 2015, in the case of the assessee, was invalid, illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio and therefore the impugned assessment order passed by him under section 147/143(3)/153A of the Act, in pursuance to such invalid notice is liable to be quashed. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. ARs of the appellant and the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO for reopening the income-tax assessment for the relevant A.Y. 2008-09. In the present case the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated after 4 years. The notice was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore it was necessary to ensure that conditions prescribed in the first proviso to Section 147 were attracted. In terms of the said first proviso the assessment could have been reopened only if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be far-fetched or irrelevant, At the stage of formation of belief, it was not necessary for the Ld. AO to come to conclusion or prove that the amount was actually suppressed or that the inferences drawn by the Shah Commission were true and correct. At the stage of initiation of proceedings u/s 148 /147, all that the Ld. AO was required to demonstrate was that he was in possession some credible & tangible material on the basis of which a prudent person properly instructed in law and on facts would have formed reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Therefore applying the true test regarding disclosure of all material facts truly and fully, I am of the considered view and opinion that such disclosure was not made by the appellant when the order u/s 143(3) was passed. 4. For the foregoing reasons therefore I am of the opinion that the Ld. AO rightly invoked provisions of Section 147 before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax act, 1961. Since, I have held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was valid and proper, the consequent order passed u/s 147/ 143(3)/153A dated 30,03.2016 is also held to be valid. Accordingly, I do not find merit in the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y 2008-09, the PPT has shown total figure of export of 3,90,872 MT, whereas the appellant has shown figure of 3,82,872 MT, there being negative figure of 800 MT in the books of the assessee. 2. In the A.Y 2009-10, the PPT has shown total figure of export of 2,44,069 MT, whereas the appellant has shown figure of 2,67,069 MT, there being positive figure of 23,000 MT in the books of the assessee. 3. In the A.Y 2010-11, the PPT has shown total figure of export of 2,22,613 MT, whereas the appellant has shown figure of 2,70,213 MT, there being positive figure of 47,600 MT in the books of the assessee. 4. The above clearly brings forth the merit in the appellant's contentions that the figures of the Port Trust were not reliable, as there are differences for every year analysed, and the Ld AO has selectively picked the figure for the subject AY 2008-09 only for the reason that the figure offered by the PPT was more by 800MT than the figure disclosed in the books of accounts of the assessee-appellant. 6. I have also considered the matter from the angle of possibility, namely whether there is any evidence available with the Ld. AO that there has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AG 18695 83076227 25.12.2007 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 25800 122355520 09.01.2008 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 15500 73508161 24.01.2008 Visa Comtrade AG 14050 63498975 22.01.2008 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 16050 72537975 28.01.2008 Visa Comtrade AG 30900 139652550 14.02.2008 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 24201 116803997 26.02.2008 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 20000 80680320 29.03.2008 Golden World Enterprise Ltd. 11814 51779344 382872 140,27,59,111 8. Accordingly, it is seen that the appellant has been able to list out the various parties to whom export sales have been effected. There is merit in the submissions of the appellant that the assessee cannot be expected to submit a reconciliation statement, as he has submitted all the nitty-gritty details. In my considered opinion, it was the Ld. AO to call for and obtain the details of the figures offered by the PPT, so that the differences of 800 MT along with details could have been offered to the appellant for reconciliation. The details ought to have included the names and/or details of the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3)/153A of the Act. 6. In support of the issue raised in the Cross Objection of the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3)/153A of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the original assessment in the assessee's case for the year under consideration was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A/143(3) of the Act. He submitted that the said assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer on 17.02.2015, i.e. that the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and as per the first proviso to section 147, such reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was permissible only when any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment year. He invited our attention to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as given on page 2 of his paper book and submitted that no such failure on the part of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rs. 2,79,29,422/- (@Rs. 2595.43 per MT which is arrived at taking the amount of total sales as per P&L Account divided by total quantity of sales i.e. Rs. 2788508797.70/1074392.88). The assessee firm has shown production of Iron Ore of 11,74,680 MT in its statutory audited account for the F,Y, 2007-08 relevant to AY. 2008-09 whereas from the M.B, Shah Commission Report at Page No. 325, Annexure-Z, Vol.-II/A of 1st report on Odisha, it reveals that actual production of Iron Ore of the assessee company in the same period was 11,85,441 MT. Hence, the production of Iron Ore remains undisclosed in the books of account of the assessee firm, worked out to 10,761 MT valued at Rs. 2,79,29,422/- for the A.Y. 2008-09. On perusal of details on export quantity value of cargo (Iron Ore) exported from Paradeep Port received from Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Port, it is seen that the actual quantity of export of tile iron ore from Paradip Port, by the captioned assessee in FY 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09 was 1,28,01,37,601 MT whereas in the assessee's books of account, it is reflected as 93,64,98,243 MT. Hence the quantity of export of iron ore to the tune of 34,36,39,358 MT remain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of the alleged suppression of export sales. 11. The ld. D.R. submitted that the export of iron ore by the assessee company through Paradeep Port Trust during the year under consideration as reported by the Paradeep Port Trust itself in response to the enquiry directly made by the Assessing Officer was 3,90,872 Metric Ton as against the export of 3,82,872 Metric Ton shown by the assessee company in its books of account. He submitted that this difference could not be explained satisfactorily by the assessee-company inspite of sufficient opportunity given by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He contended that the onus in this regard was on the assessee to explain the difference of 8,000 Metric Ton in the export of iron ore as pointed out by the Assessing Officer from the relevant information received from Paradeep Port Trust and since the assessee had failed to discharge the said onus, the addition on account of the said difference by treating the same as suppression of export sale by the assessee was rightly made by the Assessing Officer. He contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, put the onus on the Assessing Officer by observing tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee and the ld. CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of unsupported and unsubstantiated allegation regarding suppression of export sale by the assessee. 13. We have considered the rival submissions on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the relevant details of export of iron ore as made by the assessee during the year under consideration through Paradeep Port Trust were obtained by the Assessing Officer by making a direct enquiry with the Paradeep Port Trust. As reported by Paradeep Port Trust, the assessee-company had made total export of 3,90,872 Metric Ton of iron ore during the year under consideration and since the export of 3,82,872 Metric Ton was shown by the assessee in its books of account, there was a difference in export of iron ore to the extent of 8,000 Metric Ton, which the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain. In reply, it was explained by the assessee that the export of iron ore as reported by Paradeep Port Trust was less than the export for the immediately succeeding two years as shown by the assessee in its books of account and the....