Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2018.

P.C.:-

1. Petitioner has challenged a notice of re-opening of assessment dated 26th March, 2018.

2. The brief facts are as under:

Petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessment year 2011-12 the petitioner had filed the return of income on 25th April, 2012 declaring total income of Rs.2749/-. The return Priya Soparkar 2 905 wp 3340-18-o was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" for short) without scrutiny. To re-open such assessment the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice. In order to do so he had recorded following reasons:

F.Y. Gross Total Profit before tax Tax 2010-11 26,280 26,280 Nil 2011-12 38,820 38,820 Nil 2012-13 1,02,330 1,02,330 Nil Priya Soparkar 3 905 wp 3340-18-o Income-tax details of the directors of FSPL provided by him are as under:

           Mukesh Sharma      AIQPS4217H      ....          Nil
           Jitendra Kr.Singh BCZPS0870C       .... Non-filer
           Kishore Shaw       BGIJS6392A      .... Non-filer
           Prakash Kr.KhaitanARYPK0082F       .... Non-
                                              taxable income

 Priya Soparkar                            4                        905 wp 3340-18-o




3.         Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner                    raised

objections to the notice of re-opening             under a communication

dated 25th September, 2018. Such objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 20 th October, 2018.

Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and raised following contentions in support of the challenge:

"23 The present factual canvas has to be scrutinized on the touchstone of the aforesaid enunciation of law. It is worth noting that the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with immense vehemence that the petitioner had entered into correspondence to have the documents but the assessing officer treated them as objections and made a communication. However, on a scrutiny of the order, it is perceivable that the authority has passed the order dealing with the objections in a very careful and studied manner. He has taken note of the fact that transactions involving Rs. 27 lakhs mentioned in the table in Annexure P-2 Priya Soparkar 17 905 wp 3340-18-o constitute fresh information in respect of the assessee as a beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries provided to it and represents the undisclosed income. The assessing officer has referred to the subsequent information and adverted to the concept of true and full disclosure of facts. It is also noticeable that there was specific information received from the office of the DIT (INV-V) as regards the transactions entered into by the assessee company with number of concerns which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions. As we perceive, it is neither a change of opinion nor does it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought to be done in a different manner in the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. The reason to believe has been appropriately understood by the assessing officer and there is material on the basis of which the notice was issued. As has been held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra), Bombay Pharma Products (supra) and Anant Kumar Saharia (supra), the Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to sufficiency of reasons for formation of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be judged at that stage. In SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), the bench has interfered as it was not discernible whether the assessing officer had applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief on the basis of material which he had before him that the income had escaped assessment. In our considered opinion, the decision rendered therein is not applicable to the factual matrix in the case at hand. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Priya Soparkar 18 905 wp 3340-18-o Division Bench had noted that certain companies were used as conduits but the assessee had, at the stage of original assessment, furnished the names of the companies with which it had entered into transactions and the assessing officer was made aware of the situation and further the reason recorded does not indicate application of mind. That apart, the existence of the companies was not disputed and the companies had bank accounts and payments were made to the assessee company through the banking channel. Regard being had to the aforesaid fact situation, this Court had interfered. Thus, the said decision is also distinguishable on the factual score."