TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 148 without obtaining satisfaction as required by provisions of section 151 and therefore, the notice itself is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 without providing copy of reasons recorded, if any, and therefore the assessment is bad in law as held by Honourable Supreme court in case of GKN Driveshafts, 255 ITR 19 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the assessment completed under section 143(3) rws 148 without bringing out the failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as required u/s 147 therefore, the notice issued pursuant to the same is bad in law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the basis of assumption. Without appreciating that the appellant had not entered into any such transaction and continuously denied during the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agent who arrange cash/cheque loans from various lenders/to various Borrowers. b. On the basis of information received and also on perusal of the records of the assessee, it is noticed that the above mentioned assessee has availed accommodation entries from Gauri Shankar Choudhary during the year under consideration. c. Details of the entity to whom the assessee has given loan for the year under consideration are given as under:- Name of the Entity PAN Amount Medium Satyaveer Saraliya AIOPS1838K 25,00,000 Cheque d. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case and after due application of my mind, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax of at least Rs. 25,00,000/- or any other income chargeable to tax which comes to my notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for re-assessment has escaped assessment due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for this assessment year 2012-13 within the terms of provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the case is re-opened u/s 147 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived by the assessing officer from whatever source. c) On the issue of reasons to believe, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court In the case of Indo European Breweries Ltd. Vs. ITO (Bom.) (2012), 343 ITR 195 (Bom.) observed as under: - "A Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (As the learned Chief Justice of India then was) held in Dr. Amin Pathology Laboratory Vs. P N Prasad Joint CIT(No.1),(2001), 252 ITR, 673 (Bom.) that the test that must be applied is whether a prudent Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Applying that test and on the basis of material which have come on record, exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted." d) In the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT(SC)102 ITR 287, the Supreme Court, the Apex Court has explained the concept of "Information'' for reopening the assessment in "detail. As per this decision, the word "information" would also include true and correct state of law derived from relevant judicial decisions either of the I.T. authorities or Courts of raw. Information may come from external sources or even from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rried out beyond a period of four year, but within six years, if any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. From the discussion in the foregoing paras it is crystal clear that the information as regards the accommodation entries was not available with the Assessing Officer. The assessee ought to have furnished such information suo motu during the course of original scrutiny proceeding. Simply complying with the notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act during the original assessment u/s. 143(3) does not absolve the assessee of the furnishing all material facts fully and truly to the assessing officer; and therefore, does not do away with any further reassessment proceedings that may arise upon availability of any fresh material facts. Therefore, in this case, the time limit of issuance of notice under section 148 of Act is fully justified and is in sync with section 147 of the Act. Thus the Ld. AO was aware that the earlier assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, even though it was ....