2022 (6) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals)-2, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT(A)'] even dated 30.08.2019 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. These appeals and Cos' relate to the same assessee and hence are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up AY 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos. 2426/Kol/2019, CO:02/Kol/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12: 2. The revenue has challenged the order of Ld.CIT(A) on merit as the ld CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits whereas the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on legal issue which was not no clear cut findings were given by Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee primarily relate to wrong assumption of juris....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the disallowance of Rs. 6,24,77,828/- under head prior period of expenses is void ab initio, opposed to requirement of law and bad in law. 7. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add, delete or substitute any other grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) on 24.09.2011 declaring a total loss of Rs. 11,09,00,437/- . Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) was framed vide order dated 11.03.2014 assessing the total loss at Rs. 6,37,04,541/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.08.2017 which wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act as invalid. The Ld. AR while drawing the attention of the bench to the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act submitted that the assessment was reopened without there being any substantive material before the AO. The Ld. AR further argued that the case was reopened after period of 4 years from the relevant assessment year without mentioning in the reasons recorded or without any whisper of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact relating to the income which has ultimately led to escapement or underassessment. The Ld. AR submitted that under first Proviso to section 147, the case of the assessee can only be reopened if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts materiall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the end of the assessment year. The proviso to section 147 of the Act mandates that the re-opening beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year can only made if underassessment or escapement is by reasons of the failure of the assessee to disclose any material facts in the return of income. Thus reopening of assessment proceedings, assessment after expiry of four years can only be made if the condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act are satisfied i.e. failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose any material fact or information which ultimately lead to escapement of income. In the present case before us, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2014. We note....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be sustained and has to be set aside. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter the AO received the information from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received bogus loans in the form of accommodation entries and on that basis the case of the assessee was reopened. In the case of Rajivraj Ranbirsingh Choudhary vs ACIT (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as laid down the same ratio. In this case the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the AO accepted the loans taken by the assessee from the family members. The assessment was reopened after a period of more than 4 years on the ground that sources of loan funds were not explained. Considering the facts of the present case before us in the light....