TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 4. The petitioner/assessee filed its Return on Income (ROI) concerning the AY mentioned above on 01.07.2011. This ROI was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 5. Six years and nine months after the ROI for AY 2011-12 was filed, the petitioner/assessee was, as indicated above, served with the impugned notice by the AO. The impugned notice was premised on the Assessing Officer's (AO) belief, based on the reasons he recorded [although not communicated with the said notice], that income, otherwise chargeable to tax in AY 201112, had escaped assessment. 6. The petitioner/assessee was, thus, via the impugned notice, called upon to file an ROI in the prescribed form for the AY in issue within thirty (30) days. 7. The petitioner/assessee complied with the direction issued to it and, accordingly, filed the ROI on 05.04.2018, which declared the same income that had been disclosed while filing the original ROI on 01.07.2011. 8. Since the AO had failed to furnish the document containing 'reason to believe', which formed the basis for triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner/assessee, a request in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pushpanjali Enclave branches of HDFC Bank during the periods spanning between 22.06.2009 and 08.12.2009 and 05.01.2010 and 18.02.2010 respectively. These periods concern the Financial Year (FY) 2009-10 [AY 2010-11] and not the period in issue, i.e., FY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12. (iv) The AO has not applied his mind. In the first tabular chart in the document containing the 'reason to believe', the RTGS receipt in the petitioner's/assessee's Pitampura bank account, against the date 08.12.2009, entry 15, shows that the amount ostensibly received was Rs. 1,95,00,000/- while the cumulative balance of entries 1 to 15 is also shown as Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. (v) A perusal of paragraph 3.2 of the 'reason to believe', recorded by the AO, would show that while he concluded that there had been an increase in the 'source of funds' amounting to Rs. 61,87,061/- received against share capital, security premium, share application money, and long-term unsecured loans in the AY in issue, i.e., AY 2011-12, in comparison to the preceding AY, i.e., AY 2010-11, there is nothing to show that he had, with him, tangible evidence that would have him believe that 'income chargeable to tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. (iii) Upon receipt of the information, the AO made enquiries and, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 20.03.2018 to the petitioner/assessee, calling upon it to furnish documents and information adverted to therein by 26.03.2018. Amongst others, the petitioner/assessee was asked to explain and provide details of financial transactions held during FY 2010-11 with Mr Ram Singh, proprietor of Para Impex Chem. As the petitioner/assessee did not respond to the communication dated 20.03.2018, the AO had no option but to trigger reassessment proceedings against the petitioner/assessee by issuing the impugned notice. (iv) The commencement of the reassessment proceeding is aligned with the provisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and the law stated by the courts in that behalf. III. Analysis and Reasons: 16. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the following undisputed facts have come to the fore: (i) Cash deposits were found in the accounts maintained by Para Impex Chem [whose proprietor was one Mr Ram Singh] with ICICI Bank, from which monies were remitted, via RTGS, to two bank accounts main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im to form a belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment. Admittedly, the AO had in his possession a letter dated 12.03.2018 addressed to him by ITO (Nahan), which in turn contained the intimation supplied by ADIT (Inv)/Unit-4(2). It appears that the information furnished suggested that cash deposits had been made in the account bearing no. 083005000211 maintained with the ICICI bank by Ram Singh, the proprietor of Para Impex Chem, out of which monies were remitted via RTGS to the two bank accounts of the petitioner/assessee maintained with HDFC Bank. Neither the letter nor the intimation of the ADIT(Inv)/Unit-4(2), New Delhi was furnished to the petitioner/assessee. 17.2 Although the petitioner/assessee has also flagged the issue that copies of the FIR and the chargesheet filed by CBI were not furnished to it, we do not lay much store by this assertion made in the behalf as, in the ordinary course, this information would have been made available to the petitioner/assessee, as it is not disputed by it that the names of its directors were included in the list of accused. That said, as indicated above, the petitioner/assessee was entitled to receive cop....