2021 (4) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was made under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act by issuing impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act. The writ applicant filed his return of income in response to the notice and requested the respondent to supply the copy of the reasons for reopening and same was supplied vide communication dated 25.04.2019. The writ applicant vide letter dated 25.06.2019 raised objections and the same came to be disposed of by the revenue vide order dated 29.11.2019. 4. The Assessing Officer before issuing the notice has recorded the following reasons for reopening of the assessment. Reasons for Reopening :- "1. Brief details of the assessee: The assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs. 11,51,210/-. 2.Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: The information in respect of the penny stock transaction made in FY 2011-12 was made by the asessee as per information received from the ITO/CIB)1, Mumbai on 02.04.2013 at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ully during her assessment for the year under consideration. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a fit case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 9. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 will be obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 5. The writ applicant raised the objections against the issuance of impugned notice and initiation of the reassessment proceedings, mainly on the following grounds : i. Lack/absence of valid sanction under Section 151 of the Act. ii. The reasons for reopening factually incorrect; iii. No 'reason to believe' that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; iv. No live nexus/link between the information received and material gathered from the different sources. v. Reopening is not permissible for proving and/or fishing inquiry or investigatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that, the affidavit-in-reply filed by the revenue, the revenue seeks to supplement the reasons recorded by the AO which cannot sustainable in law. g. It was submitted that the AO has merely presumed that the transactions entered into by the writ applicant in the scrip in question is a penny stock transaction, which cannot be a legal ground to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration. 9. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel submitted that reopening of the assessment is, therefore, without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani has relied upon the following decisions: i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court, ITA 125 of 2020 decided on 15.01.2021) ii. Prashant S. Joshi Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 189, taxmann 1(Bom) iii. Gujarat Lease Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com.359 (Guj) iv. Krishna Metal Industries Vs. HM Algotar (1997) 225 ITR 853, Gujarat v. N.B. Bhatt Inspectin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utiny assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act would not apply, in other words, though the reopening of the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is not necessary for the AO to show that, there was any failure to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. When return is processed under Section 143 of the Act and in intimation sent to assessee, it is not an "assessment". Therefore, when reopening is sought of an assessment, the initial return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, the AO can form ''reason to believe'' that income has escaped assessment by examining the return and/or the documents accompanying the return. It is not necessary in such case for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form ''reason to believe'' that the income has escaped assessment. 16. A plain reading of reasons recorded reveals that, the case of the assessee is reopened under Section 147 of the Act, since the information dated 02.04.2013 received from ITO (CIB-1), Mumbai at DIT (I & CI, Mumbai) that as per the penny stock transaction da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supplement the reasons recorded by the AO, which is not permissible in law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revenue would submit that, the attempt on the part of the revenue is to make further clarification of the information received by the AO and it can be permissible in law. We have examined the reasons recorded as indicated above for reopening of the assessment. It appears that, the AO has made reference of the information received from the concerned investigation wing with regard to bogus accommodation entries of long term capital gain provided by the certain entities. Though, full details of the information and enquiry conducted by Kolkata wing having not been reflected in the reasons recoded, but there was a specific reference made in the reasons recorded by the AO that, the transactions made by the assessee is penny stock. In this context, we may place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers Vs. ITO, [335 ITR 234], wherein, this Court after referring the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of East Cost Commercial Com. Ltd., [128 ITR 324], it was held that, the income tax officer in his affidavit filed in the Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment. We may place reliance on the case of Central Prominces Mangnese Ore Company ltd. (191 ITR 662 SC), wherein the Apex Court interpreted the word "reason to believe". It was held that, the word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" in Section 147, would means cause or justification. If the assessing officer has cause or jurisdiction to know or suppose that income has escaped assessment he can be said to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. 22. In Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. M.J.Makwana Vs. CIT, [236 ITR 832], this court while interpreting the term 'reason to believe', held that, the word "reason to believe" cannot mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and, if he likes, from any information that he receives. If he discovers or finds or satisfies himself that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that he had reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment. The ju....