For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The main ground emphasized by the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneously decided the legal issue raised by the assesse that initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act was bad in law. If there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclosure fully and truly the material facts, wrong interpretation of accounts by the Assessing Officer leading to excessive relief cannot be a ground for reopening and thus cannot confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer.Explanation2 cannot be read in isolation of section 147.It should be read in conjunction with the provisions in the section.The words for the purpose of this section appearing inExplanation2 show that the conditions precedent for reopening assessment as laid down in section 147 have to be complied with. ssessee had disclosed its transactions with Shri Chowdhury towards sale of saree’s on commission to the extent of Rs. 27,50,000/-. The commission charged @ 0.5% amounting to Rs. 13,750/- was also disclosed and the same was also duly offered to tax. In view of the foregoing we note that even in the reasons recorded, the AO had not spoken any facts which would throw light that the disclosed facts of saree sales on commission could be taken as false or untrue or from which it could be inferred that there was any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the assessee Taking into account all the facts & circumstances of the appellant’s case, and applying the judicial principles laid down by various Courts, we are of the considered view that the reopening of assessment in the present case was done without satisfying the conditions precedent in Section 147 and for that reason the reopening is held to becorum non judice. Therefore, all proceeding subsequently made is 'null' in the eyes of law and so, we quash the notice of reopening u/s. 148 and subsequent orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) is also held to be null & void in the eyes of law. Accordingly the assessee succeeds on the legal issue challenged before us.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 147, 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the main ground emphasized by the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneously decided the legal issue raised by the assessee that initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act was bad in law.
In this case, from a plain reading of reasons recorded, we note that the AO has not satisfied this jurisdictional fact. Thus, usurpation of jurisdiction u/s. 147 to re-open the assessment completed u/s. 147, after four years has to be struck down for not satisfying the jurisdictional fact which is a condition precedent to legally assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Held that— Receipt of information from the Ld. CIT-15, Kolkata, no independent enquiry was also carried out by the AO himself before reaching his independent satisfaction that alleged escapement had actually occurred or that the assessee in fact was beneficiary of any sum received from Shri Chowdhury in the form of sale proceeds of sarees. In such a scenario, when the AO was in receipt of the information from the Ld. CIT-15, Kolkata he ought to have made enquiries to unravel the truth. It has to be remembered that information is not synonymous to truth. Just because a letter has been received from the Ld. CIT-15, Kolkata the AO cannot reopen the completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

'Reason to suspect' based on an information can trigger an enquiry to find out whether there is any substance or material to substantiate that there is merit in the information adduced by the Ld. CIT-15, Kolkata and thereafter the AO has to take an independent decision to re-open or not.

The reopening of assessment in the present case was done without satisfying the conditions precedent in Section 147 and for that reason the reopening is held to be corum non judice. Therefore, all proceeding subsequently made is 'null' in the eyes of law and so, we quash the notice of reopening u/s. 148 and subsequent orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) is also held to be null & void in the eyes of law. Accordingly the assessee succeeds on the legal issue challenged before us. - Decided in favor of assessee.[M/S. PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15 (2) , KOLKATA] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [21] [ITAT KOLKATA]