Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

CIT Vs. SUPREME POLYPROPOLENE PVT. LTD.
June, 21st 2013
$~S-10

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                          Date of decision: 26.04.2013

+                 Rev. Petition No. 215/2013, CM Appl.6579/2013 in ITA No.
                  266/2011

                  CIT                                                       .... Petitioner
                                            Through :   Ms Suruchi          Aggarwal, Sr.
                                                        standing counsel.
                                   versus

                  SUPREME POLYPROPOLENE PVT. LTD.      .....Respondent
                                Through : Mr Sheel Vardhan, proxy for Mr
                                          Prakash Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

R.V. EASWAR, J.: (OPEN COURT)


CM Appl.6579/2013

         The delay of 25 days in filing the review petition is condoned for the reasons
stated in the application.

         The application is disposed of.

Rev. Petition No. 215/2013 in ITA No. 266/2011

1.       This petition has been filed by the revenue seeking review of the judgment of
this Court dated 30.10.2012 in ITA No.266/2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the
revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 26.02.2010







Rev.Pet.215/2013 in ITA 266/2011                                                  Page 1 of 5
in ITA NO.4622/Del./2009 on its file, setting aside the reassessment proceedings
initiated under section 147 of the Act as being without jurisdiction.

2.       The assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 was completed
under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 19.3.2004. On 31.3.2008, acting on
the basis of material which was stated to have been furnished to him, the assessing
officer issued a notice under section 148 reopening the assessment on the ground that
income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Detailed reasons were recorded by
the assessing officer for reopening the assessment. He referred to a list which was
sent to him by the Additional Director of Investigation-VI, New Delhi containing the
details of transactions and particulars of beneficiaries and operators of accommodation
entries in Delhi. He noted that the list revealed that the assessee had provided a large
number of accommodation entries to other beneficiaries from its bank account with
Vijaya Bank, Daryaganj. The assessing officer further noted that the assessee was an
associate of one Sanjay Mohan Aggarwal, who was an entry operator of Delhi.
According to the assessing officer, the entries in the bank account of the assessee
represented unexplained cash deposits against which cheques were issued to the
beneficiaries, after charging commission. The commission income was not declared
in the return of income filed by the assessee and thus there was escapement of income
chargeable to tax, inviting action under section 147.       Since the quantum of the
commission was believed to be more than `1 lakh, the extended period of limitation
(more than 4 years) was applicable. On this basis the assessing officer issued notice
under section 148 of the Act reopening the assessment of the assessee.

3.       In the reassessment proceedings an amount of `4,98,47,560/- was added under
section 68. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(Appeals) being unsuccessful, it filed a
further appeal to the Tribunal.




Rev.Pet.215/2013 in ITA 266/2011                                              Page 2 of 5
4.       The Tribunal noted that even during the original assessment proceedings under
Section 143(3), information was called for by the assessing officer vide letter dated
20.12.2002 including information about the introduction of share capital, vide letter
dated 16.1.2003.          According to the Tribunal, when the original assessment
proceedings were completed on 19.3.2004, all the relevant information was available
with the assessing officer. The Tribunal perused the reasons recorded for reopening
the assessment and found that they did not contain any information on the basis of
which it could be said that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material
facts necessary for its assessment. In the absence of a specific averment in the reasons
recorded to the effect that the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure, the
Tribunal took the view that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the
assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum of the income which escaped
assessment was not recorded in the reasons, the assessing officer having merely
assumed that the quantum of the commission may be more than `1 lakh. In this view
of the matter and after referring to several authorities, including judgments of this
Court, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer erroneously assumed jurisdiction to
reopen the assessment. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed.

5.       The revenue carried the matter in appeal before this Court in ITA 266/2011.
This Court after examining the reasons recorded and the list produced before it
observed as follows:

         "6. This Court notices from the extract of the "reasons to believe"
         reproduced in the earlier part of the order that the AO adverted to a
         list, on the basis of which he was of the opinion that there was no full
         and true disclosure of all sources of income by the assessee. There are
         no details of that list. Even the list is not part of the assessment record
         which this Court had the benefit of considering. More shockingly, the
         assessment file did not even contain the forwarding letter, much less
         mention of the date of that list or the date of that letter which allegedly
         forwarded that list. The complete absence of these facts and any
         whisper as to even a single detail of that list coupled with the vague







Rev.Pet.215/2013 in ITA 266/2011                                                 Page 3 of 5
         mention of a list, which mentions some other material adverted to in
         other assessment proceedings, in the opinion of this Court certainly
         cannot be said to constitute sufficient "reasons to believe" to warrant a
         notice under Section 148 during the extended period within the
         meaning contemplated by law."

6.       In the present review petition it is claimed that the list of beneficiaries, did
exist and was sent by the Additional Director of Investigation to the assessing officer
vide letter dated 26.3.2008. It is conceded that the list "was not available on the file
produced before this Hon'ble Court but had been seen by the ADIT to the CIT-III on
26.03.2008 and has been located in other files subsequently"; a copy of the list is
attached to the present review petition. On this basis it is contended that the reasons
recorded were valid and proper and did bring out the fact that the assessee failed to
make a full and true disclosure of the material facts at the time of the original
assessment.

7.       We are afraid that once it is conceded on behalf of the revenue that the list was
not produced before this Court at the time of the hearing of the appeal and is only
being produced along with the review petition after locating the same in other files
subsequently, then there is no merit in the review petition. This Court had perused the
reasons recorded but the list was not found to be part of the assessment record which
was seen by this Court.            This Court had also noted ­ "shockingly" ­ that the
assessment record did not contain even the forwarding letter alleged to have been
written by the ADIT to the assessing officer. It was open to the revenue to produce
the list when the appeal was heard by this Court, though it would have been even then
a matter of debate as to whether, in the absence of the list in the assessment record of
the assessee, the reasons for reopening the assessment can be said to have been
properly recorded by relying on a list which is not found in the assessment record.
The prime requirement for the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the
Income Tax Act is that the reasons recorded should have a live link or nexus with the




Rev.Pet.215/2013 in ITA 266/2011                                                Page 4 of 5
material on record. This Court on an examination of the assessment record did not
find therein the list on the basis of which the reasons were recorded.

         There is no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.




                                                                         R.V.EASWAR, J


                                                              S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
APRIL 26, 2013
vld




Rev.Pet.215/2013 in ITA 266/2011                                               Page 5 of 5
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Development Software Programming Software Engineering Custom Software Development Requirement Based Software Development Software Solutions Software Serv

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions