Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.19 seconds)
Acit, Cir-40, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others, ... on 31 October, 2017 cites

Prashant S. Joshi vs The Income-Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4 on 22 February, 2010

Moreover, we find that the AO has not clearly recorded the reasons to believe for the escapement of income. The AO himself is not confident whether the income of the assessee has escaped assessment as he has not brought any tangible material in the reasons recorded for the escapement of income. However the ld. DR tried to justify the action of AO by submitting that the information was received from office of TDS Division, Bhubaneswar and therefore the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. However on perusal of the reasons recorded we find that there is no reference made by the AO to the information received from the office of TDS Division, Bhubaneswar. Thus the argument of the ld. DR cannot be accepted. Moreover the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case cannot be improved further as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S Joshi vs ITO reported in 324 ITR 154. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below :
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 134 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997

The context in which those observations were made has to be kept in mind. They were made to point out that where an "intimation" is issued under section 143(1) there is no opportunity to the assessing authority to form an opinion and therefore when its finality is sought to be disturbed by issuing a notice under section 148, the proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of "change of opinion". It was not opined by the Supreme Court that the strict requirements of section 147 can be compromised. On the contrary, from the observations (quoted by us earlier) it would appear clear that the court reiterated that "so long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled" an intimation issued under section 143(1) can be subjected to proceedings for reopening. The court also emphasised that the only requirement for disturbing the finality of an intimation is that the assessing officer should have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In our opinion, the said expression should apply to an intimation in the same manner and subject to the same interpretation as it would have applied to an assessment made under section 143(3). The argument of the revenue that an intimation cannot be equated to an assessment, relying upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra) would also appear to be self-defeating, because if an "intimation" is not an "assessment" then it can never be subjected to section 147 proceedings, for, that section covers only an "assessment" and we wonder if the revenue would be prepared to concede that position. It is nobody's case that an "intimation" cannot be subjected to section 147 proceedings; all that is contended by the assessee, and quite rightly, is that if the revenue wants to invoke section 147 it should play by the rules of that section and cannot bog down. In other words, the expression "reason to believe"
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 717 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007

Similarly on perusal of the reasons recorded it is evident that the assessing officer has recorded very vague reasons which are general in nature. No specific material, which indicated the escapement of income was brought on record. Similarly defects if any in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee was also not mentioned. No specific items of income or the receipts which escaped from income was brought on record in reasons, leave alone the quantum. The assessing officer has not mentioned any material which was suggesting and indicating escapement of income. No finding was given by the assessing officer with regard to the non disclosure of income. From plain reading of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer shows, that the reasons were recorded, without application of mind and the assessing officer wants to reopen the assessment without having any tangible material. It is settled issue that even in the cases where the assessments were completed u/s. 143(1), for reopening of the assessments, there should be reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd reported in 354 ITR 536 wherein after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri stock brokers Pvt. Ltd reported in 161 ITR 316, the issue was decided in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 514 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Living Media India Ltd on 26 April, 2013

15. In the present case the reasons disclose that the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there was escapement of income "on going through the return of income" filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing more. This is nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, both strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words "reason to believe" vis-à-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the issue of the intimation. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred under section 147.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

M/S Pvp Ventures Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 February, 2015

Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 221 has held that justification for reopening the assessment has to be tested only on the strength of recording reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. From the above discussion and judicial pronouncements, recording of proper reasons and the application of mind is necessary which must be bona fide and not in mechanical manner. Where the notice issued without application of mind on the part of the assessing officer, the same is ITA No.116/Kol/2014 & CO. 12/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 ACIT, Cir-40, Kol. Vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others Page 13 liable to be quashed. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer must disclose the process of reasoning by which he hold the reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The material relied upon by the assessing officer should appear on the record. In the instant case, it is clear that the assessing officer has recorded vague and general reasons without application of mind. The assessing officer did not establish or whisper from the reasons recorded regarding the basis for escapement of any income. It appears from the reasons recorded that assessing officer has reopened the assessment merely because some information was received from the TDS office of Bhubneshawar which is not permissible in law in the instant case. Therefore, we reverse the order of the Ld.CIT (A). Hence the ground raised in the CO by the assessee is allowed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next