TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 12.11.2013. Consequently, notice under s. 153A of the Act was issued on the assessee pursuant to which the assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income at INR 9,76,161/-. Notice under s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued alongwith the questionnaires. The assessee filed written submissions and supporting documents in the course of search assessment before the AO. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2016 wherein the income returned by the assessee at INR 9,76,161/- was assessed without any modification. 2.1. Thereafter a notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued dated 30.03.2018 seeking to re-open the completed assessment. The reasons recorded under s. 148(2) which provided foundation for re-opening the completed assessment is reproduced as under:- "Reason for re-opening of the Assessment in the case of M/s Ranisati Impex Private Limited for the AY 2011-12 m/s 147 of the Act. The name of the assessee is M/s Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd registered at K-002, Pearl Gateway, Sector 44, Noida. The company is engaged in the business of real estate. A search & sei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nakodia Buildwell Ltd. Namo Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Aki Organics Pvt.Ltd. Gewapur Water Purification Ltd. Sony Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. Wbt India Limited Ultimate Solution Pvt.Ltd. Arrow Equity Services Pvt.Ltd. Vidhan Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Maple Infra Reality Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 3,50,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 4,00,000/- 3,50,000/- 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 31,50,000/- 9,00,000/- 13,50,000/- 13,50,000/- 27,00,000/- 18,00,000/- 27,00,000/- 36,00,000/- 31,50,000/- Total 25,00,000/- 2,25,00,000/- 3. From the facts discussed in the foregoing paras and material evidences available on record it transpires that M/s. Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. had received accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from shell companies operated by entry operator. When financials and other data of the companies of analysed it was revealed that the group companies had shown to have received share capital with exorbitant premium from large number of non-descript companies mainly based in Delhi. The profit declared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpired in this case, and the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the AY under consideration, it is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above in para 4. I have carefully considered the Assessment record containing the submissions made by assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that assessee has not fully & truly disclosed the above stated facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the Assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material cats necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. In view of the above, explanation 1 to section 147 is applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable-to-tax has esc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and relied upon. 8.1. As per the case records and oral submissions made in the course of hearing, it is the case of the assessee that the assessment in the instant case was already completed earlier under s. 153A on 31.03.2016 in pursuance of search conducted in the premises of the assessee on 12.11.2013. The reopening has been carried out based on the same incriminating material LP-16 found from the premises of the assessee at the time of search where at the left side, 'Dubai' has been shown as 126.00 and on the right side name of certain companies are mentioned. The relevant loose papers/seized document is extracted hereunder:- "Details of payments receivable from Dubai Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. Receipt Amount Payments Amount Dubai 126.00 WBT India Pvt.Ltd. Nakodaji Buildwell Ltd. Amar Saria Impex Ltd. Gewapur Water Purification Pvt.Ltd. Sony Financial Services Ltd. AKI Organies P.Ltd. Namo Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Ultimate IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 10.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 35.00 20.00 125.00 8.2. The AO alleged in the reasons recorded under s. 148(2) of the Act that in rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of opinion' on the same facts duly examined by the AO in the previous proceedings. The contents of the loose paper which was already a subject matter of specific enquiry in search assessment, have sought to be revisited by the AO after the completion of assessment and based on a mere different view and change of opinion on the contents of the existing loose paper. Besides, the completed assessment has been unauthorisedly re-opened after four years from the end to the relevant AY without meeting the pre-requisites of the first proviso to erstwhile s. 147 of the Act. 9. The contention on behalf of the assessee on purported lack of jurisdiction under s. 147 are broadly outlined hereunder:- (a) The contents of the loose papers were evaluated and subjected to innate enquiry in the course of original assessment and after taking into account the explanation offered, the AO reached a conclusion that explanation offered is plausible and consequently, the returned income was not disturbed; (b) No fresh material has come to the possession of the AO subsequent to the original assessment which may give rise to inference of discovery of any income which escaped assessment; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiry in the course of original assessment too. It is self-evident that the AO has attempted to entertain a different opinion on the same documents post assessment. There is no reference to any new material which has come to surface post original assessment. It is trite that a completed assessment cannot be re-opened in exercise of power conferred under s. 147 of the Act merely on the basis of 'change of opinion'. A reference has been made in this regard to the judgement delivered in the case of Rasalika Trading & Investment Co.P.Ltd. vs DCIT & Another [2014] 365 ITR 447 (Delhi) where the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) was applied. Needless to say, there is a conceptual difference between 'power to review' and 'power to reassess'. There are long line of judicial precedents wherein it was essentially held that a fresh litigation cannot be started with a view to obtain another assessment upon different assumption of same facts. The re-opening cannot be made as a mere ipse dixit on the basis of a different view on same set of facts. It is not a case that loose paper/material showing entries were not available before the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were thus available to the AO. It is plainly a case of oversight, if any on the part of AO and cannot be said that the income escaped by reason of omission or failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Such view has been expressed in Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC). In the instant case, the entries recorded in the loose paper were glaring and one cannot imagine that the AO has missed out to take note of crucial expression 'Dubai'. The assessee cannot be expected to proactively provide explanation on each averment found recorded in documents which were subjected to assessment unless asked to do so. Once all primary facts are available before the AO, it is for him to decide the manner of enquiry and draw appropriate inference thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co.vs ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) observed that an assessee is not expected to advise the AO as to what inferences to be drawn on the disclosed facts. On facts, the AO has not made any reference to any subsequent or fresh information to expose alleged falsity in the facts disclosed. The loose paper was before AO since inception. Thus one cannot claim....