Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):- 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 9/Cir.4/232/2015-16 dated 09/03/2018 on following grounds of appeal: -
1. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of ‘reasons recorded’ which are devoid of a reasonable belief formulated by the AO as to escapement of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of an intimation received from investigation wing of the Department, about suspicious suppliers of goods. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the order of reassessment which was not passed by the AO within the time limit limits stipulated in section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating in proper perspective the appellant’s submissions contained in its letter dated 17.06.2016 and 27.11.2017 submitted before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which forms part of the records of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to omit, alter, amend any of the above grounds or add a new ground before disposal of the appeal.
2.1 Facts on record reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in manufacturing of optical whitening chemicals and other allied chemical was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/03/2015 wherein the assessee was saddled with certain additions of Rs.2.23 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. The original return was assessed u/s 143(3) on 29/11/2011 at loss of Rs.371.44 Lacs. 2.2 Subsequently, pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Authorities that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.2.23 Lacs from a suspicious entity namely M/s D.R.Trading Co., the case was reopened vide issue of notice u/s 148 on 06/03/2014 which was followed by statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1). The reasons for reopening were duly supplied and the assessee’s objections against reopening were disposed- off in due course of time.
2.3 Although the assessee defended the purchases, however, physical inspection of premise of supplier revealed that no such party existed at the given address. After considering assessee’s submissions and documentary evidences, the aforesaid purchases were treated as bogus purchases and added to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee contested the validity of reassessment proceedings and also contested the quantum additions on merit. However, the assessee’s submissions could not find favor with Ld. first appellate authority who confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Ground Nos. 1 to 3 agitate reassessment proceedings on legal grounds. After due consideration of material on record, we find that the reassessment proceedings were triggered within a period of 4 years from the end of relevant AY and therefore, the only requirement to reopen the case was that Ld. AO came into possession of some tangible material which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. This tangible material came in the shape of information from Sales Tax Authorities which prima-facie established possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO, after appreciating the same, formed a belief that certain income escaped assessment and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The reasons recorded were duly supplied and the assessee’s objections against the same were duly disposed-off. Nothing more at this stage, in our opinion, was required to trigger reassessment proceedings against the assessee.
Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order in this regard. Accordingly, these grounds stand dismissed.
Ground No. 4 contest the reassessment order on the ground that the reassessment order was not passed within stipulated time as envisaged by Section 153. However, we find that the reassessment order has been framed on 27/03/2015 which is well within the stipulated period of one year from the end of financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the same.
By way of ground No. 5, the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the assessee’s submissions dated 17/06/2016 & 27/11/2017. However, nothing on record would suggest that the said submissions were not considered while framing the impugned order. Finding no force in the same, we dismiss this ground. Ground No. 6 is general in nature.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced in the open court on20/05/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 20/05/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.