Consolidation of cases of calendar year 2020 for Section 147 & 148 in favour of the Revenue & set aside.

Back Ground Color code

This back ground represent cases of Supreme Court

This back ground represent cases of High Courts

This back ground represent cases of Tribunals

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [SC]-[S.147] Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Research and development expenditure-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice in respect of first ground was up held and in respect of second ground is held to be not valid. [S.133A, 148, Art. 226] The assessment of the assessee was reopened on two counts, firstly, the diversion of profit by transfer of technology by Sun BVI to Caraco, USA; and secondly, allocation of R&D expenses, whereby the products manufactured at Sun Pharma Industries (SPI) & Sun Pharmaceuticals, Silvassa (SPS) are being developed at the R&D facilities of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) and the expenditure related to such R&D is debited in the books of account of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited-the petitioner, thereby reducing its profit and correspondingly, inflating the profit of both SPS & SPI to that extent. High Court after taking in to consideration of all the facts held that , notice of re-opening on the first ground reflected in reasons of reopening is sustained whereas the same is not upheld on the second ground. Accordingly relief granted in favour of assessee in respect of the second ground stands confirmed. Assessing Officer is permitted to proceed with the reassessment proceedings on the first ground raised in reasons recorded without being in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in this petition. (AY. 2005-06) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 115 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed. Dy.CIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (2020) 272 Taxman 407 (SC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [SC]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Existence of material-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S.148, Art.226] Dismissing the petitions the Court held that there existed material to infer that income had escaped assessment. On the issue under consideration were not filed during the course of the assessment proceeding or were not considered during the assessment. Issue of notice is held to be valid. Precision Engineering v. ACIT(2020)427 ITR 198 / 196 DTR 371 (Chhattisgarh)(HC) Aaditya Construction v. PCIT (2020)427 ITR 198 /196 DTR 371 (Chhattisgarh)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed , due to low tax effect , ACIT v. Gayatri Microns Ltd. (2021) 278 Taxman 274 (SC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [SC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Anonymous donations-Appeal pending on similar issue in another issue-Notice not to be quashed-Order of High Court remanding the matter was affirmed. [S. 115BBC, 148] Disposing the appeal the Court held that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 pursuant to the notice for reassessment which has been issued on 23 March 2018, in accordance with law. The issue as to whether the notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 is valid is kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings after the assessment order is passed. Upon the passing of the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 and in order to enable the assessee to pursue its remedies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) there shall be an interim protection in terms of the order that was passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Saibaba Sansthan Trust. Both the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16 shall be heard together by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant shall be at liberty to pursue its remedies in accordance with law. (AY. 201314) Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. UOI (2020) 114 taxmann.com 489 /270 Taxman 197 / 316 CTR 587 (SC) Editorial: Order of High Court is affirmed Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. UOI (2018) 100 taxmann.com 77/ 168 DTR 364/ 304 CTR 444 (Bom.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [SC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Notice-Validity-Special audit report was a fresh tangible material-Formed reasonable belief for escaped assessment-Reassessment notice is valid. [S.37(1) 80G, 147] On examination of special audit report, filed after passing of original assessment, it was found that claim by assessee towards placement fees paid to its subsidiaries, advertisement expenses and donations paid to a charitable trust u/s.80G were prima facie bogus as assessee could not substantiate their genuineness by providing relevant documents and evidences, reassessment notice on basis of said report was justified. (W P No.2739 of 2017 dt.2/02/2018). (AY. 2010-11) Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 265 /(2020) 423 ITR 445 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of Assessee is dismissed (SLP No.20523 of 2018)(2019) 410 ITR 162(St.)(SC)/(2019) 260 Taxman 243 (SC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [SC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Recorded reasons not furnished-Reassessment is bad in law. [S.147] High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue wherein the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that recorded reason was not furnished to the assessee. Followed. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.)(HC). CIT v. National Organic Chemical (2020) 115 taxmann.com 244 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, CIT v. National Organic Chemical CIT v. National Organic Chemical (2020) 272 Taxman 530 (SC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [All.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Audit objection-Income from other sources-Profit worked on basis of contract/sub-contract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as other income-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 56, 148] Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of contract and sub-contract income. On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add interest income shown in books as other income. Subsequently, audit objections were raised by audit party Assessing officer issued notice under section 147 of the Act. Tribunal up held the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Dismissing the petition the Court held that since in Profit and Loss Account, assessee himself had shown interest on FDRs as 'other income', question of double addition would not arise on reassessment. Reassessment is held to be proper. Suresh Chand Gupta v. PCIT (2020) 273 Taxman 66 (All.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(All.HC)]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Tax frauds-Reasons to believe have been recorded in meticulous details by the AO-Approval was obtained before issue of notice-Notice of reassessment is held to be valid in law.[S.148, 151] Dismissing the petition the Court held that reasons to believe have been recorded in meticulous details by the AO. Approval was obtained before issue of notice. Objections of the assessee were dealt with on a point to point basis, there is no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly notice of reassessment is held to be valid in law. (AY. 2012-13) Deepak Gupta v. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 92 / 186 DTR 250/ 303 CTR 34/ 275 Taxman 338 (All.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(HC)(Bom.)(HC]-[S.147] (LM) Reassessment-Dropping of reassessment proceedings by AO-Absence of challenge held to be justified. [S.148, Art.226] The notice issued for reopening of the assessment is dropped by the AO though not challenged by the assessee. On writ the assessee contended that they have not opposed the reassessment proceedings hence the dropping of reassessment notice is not permissible. Dismissing the petition the Court held that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 are for benefit of revenue and, therefore, dropping of reassessment proceedings by AO even in absence of assessee challenging notice under section 147/148, is justified. Followed K.Sudhakar S.Shanbhag v ITO (200) 241 ITR 865 (Bom.)(HC) Menck GMBH v. ACIT (2020) 268 Taxman 176 (Bom.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(Bom.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-After expiry of four years-A mere bald assertion by the AO that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts is not sufficient. The AO has to give details as to which fact or the material was not disclosed by the assessee, leading to its income escaping assessment. Otherwise, the reopening is not valid. [S. 80IB(10)(f),148, Art. 226] Allowing the petition the court held that a mere bald assertion by the AO that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts is not sufficient. The AO has to give details as to which fact or the material was not disclosed by the assessee, leading to its income escaping assessment. Otherwise, the reopening is not valid. In order to sustain a notice seeking to reopen assessment beyond normal period of 4 years, it is necessary for revenue to establish, at least, prima facie that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. (AY. 2012-13) Anand Developers v. ACIT (2020)425 ITR 261 / 116 taxmnn.com 361/194 DTR 73 (Bom.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Bom.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Information from DDIT (investigation)-Purchasing and selling of shares-Systematic evasion of taxes by clients by misuse of NMCE platform-Reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 4,143(1), Art.226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that as per the information from DDIT (investigation) it was found that the assessee is purchasing and selling of shares in systematic evasion of taxes by clients by misuse of NMCE platform. Accordingly the issue of reassessment notice is held to be justified as the AO has formed a prima facie view that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment which was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. (AY. 2012-13) Spicy Sangria Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 268 Taxman 360/ (2019) 111 taxmann.com 360 (Bom.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Bom.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Assessment u/s 143(1) can be reopened on basis of information obtained during course of assessment of earlier assessment year under S. 143(3) of the Act. [S.143(1), 148, Art.226] The assessee-construction company filed return where Rs. 5.20 crores was shown as the cost of plot and farm development expenses and Rs. 25 crores as the proportionate land cost. The assessment was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The reassessment notice was issued on the basis of earlier assessment which was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. On writ the court held that the assessment for the subject assessment year was by virtue of intimation under section 143(1). Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occassion to examine the claim of the assessee. It is on the basis of tangible information now received that the impugned reopening notice has been issued, as is evident from the reasons recorded. Therefore, the reasons do make out a prima facie case that income chargeable to tax for the subject assessment year has escaped assessment. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. (AY. 2017-18) Belazio Construction (P.) Ltd. (2020) 268 Taxman 170 (Bom.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Chhattisgarh HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Alternative remedy-Reassessment proceedings completed and appeal filed from order of reassessment-Writ is held to be not maintainable. [S. 148, Art. 226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that the interference at the notice stage is possible only in exceptional cases. It was open to the assessee to raise all the challenges, both legal and factual, by availing of the statutory remedy. The notice and proceedings under challenge in the writ petition had culminated in a reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer; which admittedly had been challenged by filing a statutory appeal and was pending consideration. This being the position, it was not a fit case to call for interference at this stage. Precision Engineering v. ACIT(NO.2)(2020)427 ITR 258 (Chhattisgarh) distinguished.

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Chhattisgarh HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Alternative remedy-Reassessment proceedings completed and appeal filed from order of reassessment-Writ is held to be not maintainable. [S. 148, Art. 226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that the interference at the notice stage is possible only in exceptional cases. It was open to the assessee to raise all the challenges, both legal and factual, by availing of the statutory remedy. The notice and proceedings under challenge in the writ petition had culminated in a reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ; which admittedly had been challenged by filing a statutory appeal and was pending consideration. This being the position, it was not a fit case to call for interference at this stage.Precision Engineering v. ACIT(NO.2) (2020)427 ITR 258 (Chhattisgarh) distinguished. Obiter dicta : The observations made by the single judge in the judgment under challenge would stand confined to consideration of the question whether interference was to be made by the court at the notice stage or not. In other words, the observations made by the single judge as to the scope of the relevant provisions of law would not be a bar to the appellate authority to consider the merits of the appeal including questions of law and of fact. It was open to the assessee to agitate all such aspects, both factual and legal, before the appellate authority and if they were raised, they should be considered untrammelled by the observations made by the single judge in the judgment under challenge.(AY.2012-13) Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 428 ITR 101/ 317 CTR 1000/ 196 DTR 276 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Chhattisgarh HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Alternative remedy-Survey-Dismissal of writ petition on ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy-Held to be justified. [S. 133A,148, Art. 226] Based on information collected by way of survey under section 133A of the Act the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 148 for reassessment under section 147. The writ petition filed by the assessee against the reassessment proceedings was dismissed by the single judge on the ground that remedy of statutory appeal was available to the assessee. On appeal dismissing the appeal held that the matter involved a fact-finding exercise which could be effectively prosecuted before the competent authority under the statute and could not be a matter for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court under article 226. There was no irregularity, much less any illegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the single judge.(AY.2013-14) Precision Engineering v. ACIT (No. 2)(2020)427 ITR 258 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Chhattisgarh HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Subsequent information from documents impounded during survey of cash transactions-Reassessment proceedings valid. [S.133A,148 Art. 226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that in view of the statutory provisions, there were sufficient reasons given by the Assessing Officer, which according to him constituted “reasons to believe” that income which was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and which had come to the notice of Department at a later stage in the course of scrutiny. The notice and the reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation as the proceedings drawn by the Assessing Officer were with sufficient material on record showing income, which was otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.(AY.2013-14) Sanjay Agrawal v. PCIT (2020)429 ITR 233 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Delhi HC]-[S.147] (LM)Reassessment-With in four years-Issue of shares at premium-Mere production before the AO the Account Books, or other evidence, from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the Assessing Officer, would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the First Proviso to S. 147-Court perused the Investigation report which was referred while issuing the notice of reassessment-Notice of reassessment is held to be valid-Writ petition is dismissed-Awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakhs to be paid to The Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust. [S.68, 143(1),148] Dismissing the writ the Court held that the AO made inquiries with regard to the genuineness of the transactions of investment in share capital with premium in the assessee company. In the independent inquiry, the AO found that the investor companies despite service of notice did not appear; that in respect of some of them their office were found closed; some other entities were found not existing at the given address; in some cases, the premises was found to be owned by some other person. Consequently, notices could not be served in these cases. Even when they responded, the investor companies did not provide justification for applying in equity shares in the assessee company at a premium of Rs.190 per share. Court held that mere production before the AO of the Account Books, or other evidence, from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the AO would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the First Proviso to S. 147. Court also looked at the investigation report produced by the revenue. Court also observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner continued to press the matter at the expense of judicial time, which could have been better utilised to deal with other pending cases. Accordingly the Court inclined to subject the petitioner to costs for unjustifiably pressing the petition beyond a point. Accordingly the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakhs to be paid to The Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust. (AY. 2012-13) Vendanta Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 312 CTR 105/185 DTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Delhi HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-After theexpiry of four years-Financial transaction accepted as genuine during original assessment-Subsequent information from income-tax investigation wing that transaction was with name-Lender-No disclosure of true facts-Notice of reassessment is held to be valid-The Court also directed the assessee to pay cost of Rs. 1 lakhs to be paid to The Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust with in within four weeks of the receipt of this order .[S.148 Art. 226] The assessee challenged the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. In the Course of hearing the revenue produced the investigation report contained in the notice further states that inquiries were made from those entities, whose gross taxable income for the Financial Year 2011-12 was miniscule despite having substantial turnover and dealings with Moral. Summonses were issued to such entities, namely M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd, Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., JBN Impex Private Limited, Forward Minerals & Metals Private Limited, Bafna Metals Put Ltd, Misawa Impex Pvt. Ltd, Durga Enterprises and QNS Metals. However, in most cases, summonses could not be served because these entities were not found to exist at their respective addresses. Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd.-though found at the given address, had only one person/ Caretaker. On inquiry, he states that no business activity had ever been undertaken on that premises. Investigation further found that the two Directors of Moral were also the Directors of Forward Minerals & Metals Private Limited and Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The two entities with whom Moral had the highest money transactions were Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Misawa Impex Pvt. Ltd. The amounts credited into the account of Moral, as depicted from the account of Moral, in respect of both these entities were almost equal. Court also observed that the amounts credited into the account of Moral from these two entities were further transferred to other entities on the same day and the accounts of Moral were left with minimal balance. The Investigation Report contained the analysis in respect of the ITR of Moral for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The same has been extracted by the Assessing Officer in his reasons. On analysing the report and recorded reasons the court held that the obligation on the assessee to disclose the material facts or what are called primary facts is not a mere disclosure but a disclosure which is full and true. A false disclosure is not a true disclosure. Whenever an assessee takes or provides accommodation entries, one part of the transaction would appear to be completely transparent; through banking channels, and the recipient of the funds would disclose it in his returns and offer the income to tax-if such receipts constitute income liable to tax. The mere disclosure of a part of the transaction in its records by the assessee is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction Court held that the assessee did not deny the fact that it, indeed, had financial transactions with Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd.Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd,where under it received substantial amounts of Rs.90.32 crores in the financial year 2011-12. Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd had been found to be indulging in provision of accommodation entries, and it appeared that it carried out only that business and nothing else. There was nothing to show that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had examined the aspect of genuineness of the transaction undertaken by the assessee with Moral Alloys Pvt. LtdThus, the Assessing Officer had good reason to believe that the amounts received by the assessee from Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd also partook of the same colour as the other transactions of Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd undertaken with other entities. The whole business model of Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd as was evident from the investigation report, was merely to rotate funds by a process of layering through other entities. If the transaction undertaken by Sterlite Industries Private Limited (SIPL) with Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltdwere indeed not genuine, as reasonably believed by the Assessing Officer, it would not be correct to say that SIPL had disclosed fully and truly all the material facts for its assessment for the relevant assessment year. The notice of reassessment was valid. Court also observed that despite the aforesaid being a gross case and despite the decision of the Supreme Court in PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd(2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) and RDS Project Ltd v. ACIT [2020] 421 ITR 624 (Delhi)(HC)being brought to the notice of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner continued to press the matter at the expense of judicial time, which could have been better utilised to deal with other pending cases. Accordingly directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 1 lakhs to be paid to The Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust. The costs shall be paid within four weeks of the receipt of this decision. (AY.2012-13) Vedanta Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 59/ 185 DTR 249/ 312 CTR 481/ 270 Taxman 277 (Delhi)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Delhi HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Bogus share capital-Parent company-Indian subsidiaries-Information from investigation wing-Credit worthiness of the investing company-Reassessment notice is held to be valid.[S.68, 148] Dismissing the petition the Court held that ,the parent co does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries. The funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the assessee which is required to be taxed in its hands. At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of s. 68 of the Act. (AY.2012-13) Experion Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 355/ 115 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Delhi HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Cash credits-Share premium-Accommodation entries-Subsequent discovery that the transaction was with a name Lender-Notice of reassessment is held to be valid. [S.68, 148] The assessee received share application money at a premium from the investor companies were promoted by TG, who had been found to have promoted about 90 such companies. The AO had accepted the claim made by the assessee with regard to the genuineness of the transaction without any scrutiny and accepting the statement of the assessee as truthful. At that stage, the material information, which the assessee withheld and did not disclose, was that it was dealing with companies promoted by TG, who was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. The AO after recording the reasons issued the reassessment notice. The assessee challenged the issue of notice. Dismissing the petition the Court held that since the assessee did not dispute the receipt of monies from SI and NDC towards alleged capital infusion, the belief formed by the Assessing Officer, that taxable income of the assessee had escaped assessment could not, but, be described as reasonable. The notice of reassessment was valid.(AY. 2012-13) RDS Project Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 624 / 185 DTR 180/ 312 CTR 345 / 269 Taxman 327 (Delhi)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Earlier proceedings quashed on technical ground-Fresh notice for reopening and rectifying the error is valid. [S.148, Art. 226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that the investment in shares and immoveable property were not originally disclosed by the assessee at the time of the original returns. The reassessment made on 3112-2001 were setaside on technical ground of failure to comply the mandatory requirement of section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment was not on merits. The Court also observed that last date for invoking section 148 for the AY. 2008-09 expired only on 31-03 2015 and for the AY. 2009-10 on 31-3-2016 and since the notice u/s 148 were dated 17-3-2015, they were well within time. The Court held that if there has been a finding given on merits stating that there was no case for escapement assessment then 2nd notice would have been barred. Accordingly the Court held that reopening notices were not only in time but also in accordance with law. (WP No. 29005 & 29006 of 2015 dt 18-12-2019). (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10) T. Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2020) 116 taxmann.com 476/ 195 DTR 33/ 317 CTR 341/ 272 Taxman 80 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Failure to disclose material facts-Writ is held to be not maintainable. [S.148, Art. 226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that the issues involved questions which related to accounts and had to be decided by the original authority. Mere filing of the annexure by the assessee in response to the notice during scrutiny assessment by itself might or might not have been sufficient to conclude that there was full and true disclosure by the assessee if the information furnished was neither complete nor true. To ascertain whether it was a mere change of opinion or not, it had to be first established that there was true and full disclosure which could be demonstrated by the assessee only in a proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner and not under article 226 of the Constitution of India as the scope of judicial review was limited and it was not possible to conduct a roving enquiry on facts and accounts. The assessee was to participate in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.(AY.2003-04) Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)429 ITR 107/192 DTR 49/ 316 CTR 196 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(HC)(Mad.)(HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Information from investigation wing-HSBC Bank located in Switzerland-Procedural irregularities-Cannot be raised first time before High Court. [S.143(2), 148, 260A, 292BB] Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the facts recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order made it clear that procedure had been followed. There were proper issuance and service of notices under section 143(2). There was no procedural irregularity and the question of applying section 292BB of the Act would not arise. Procedural irregularity could not be canvassed for the first time before the High Court, as the assessee was never prejudiced earlier, and on the facts there was statutory compliance with the procedure under section 143. The order of reassessment was valid.(AY.2006-07, 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari v. CIT (2020) 429 ITR 14/(2021) 277 Taxman 260 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(HC)(Mad.)(HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Reasons communicated-Participated in the proceedings-If relevant germane reasons exist and have been communicated to the assessee that is enough for reassessment proceedings to hold the field-Writ is not maintainable. [S.148, Art. 226] The Assessing officer issued five notices without stating the reasons however six separate intimations, the Assessing Officer informed to assessee reasons for reopening assessment years wherein it was stated that on perusal of ITR filed by assessee during survey u/s 133A, it was noticed that assessee had claimed expenses equivalent to 59.23%, 51.10%, 38.79%, 26.71%, 28.88% & 35.24% in respective assessment years in question. Assessee had failed to furnish details despite sufficient time was granted The asseessee filed the writ petition challenging the notice under section 147/148. Dismissing the petition the Court held that if assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, he could issue a notice for passing order u/s 147. Sufficiency of those reasons could not be gone into by High Court if relevant germane reasons exist and have been communicated to assessee that was enough for reassessment proceedings to hold field During scrutiny, assessee was further asked to furnish details of invoices for expenses incurred.However, assessee failed to furnish the same. Therefore, it would be improper to hold that the Assessing Officer had erred in invoking reassessment jurisdiction vested with him under S. 147/148. Further, assessee had himself replied and participated in impugned proceedings. Reasons were also communicated to assessee to which assessee had also replied. Thus, it was not open for assessee to question same to scuttle proceedings initiated under Act. (AY.2012-13 to 2017-2018) Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 195 DTR 113 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Survey-Failure to furnish details of invoices for expenses-Reassessment is held to be valid [S. 37(1),133A,148,Art. 226] During survey it was noticed that assessee had claimed certain expenses during respective assessment years, however, when assessee was called upon to furnish bills and invoices for all expenses claimed, discrepancies with income, loan agreement copies etc., assessee had failed to furnish details despite time granted.The reassessment notice was issued.The assessee filed writ petition and contended that there was no tangible materials that were available for invoking jurisdiction under section 147/148 and non furnishing of information would not ipso facto amount to escapement of income tax. Dismissing the petition the Court held that since assessee had failed to furnish details of invoices for expenses incurred by it even during original scrutiny assessment, impugned reopening was justified.(AY. 2012-13 to 2017-18) Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 195 DTR 108 /317 CTR 451 / 268 Taxman 408 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(HC)(Mad.)(HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Survey-Expenditure Failure to produce documents in the original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice is held to be valid.[S.133A, 148, Art.226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that in the course of original assessment proceedings the assessee failed to produce the documents and bills, which was noticed in the course of survey, hence issue of notice of reassessment is held to be valid.(dt. 1-11-2019).Order of single judge is affirmed. (AY. 2012-13 to 2017-18) Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 317 CTR 456 (Mad.)(HC)(Single Judge order dt 26-8. 2019). Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 268 Taxman 408 / 195 DTR 108 / 317 CTR 451 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.147] Reassessment-Writ challenging the petition should be filed before conclusion of reassessment-Referring to the date of audit report had a live link-Existence of alternative remedy-Writ is held to be not maintainable. [S.148, Art.226] Dismissing the petition the Court held that the reassessment order had already been passed. Moreover even on the merits the admitted facts remained that the assessee had quoted a wrong date, viz., September 29, 2010 as the date of the audit report not only in the original return but also in the revised return and in the return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148. The assessee claimed that it was an inadvertent mistake or clerical mistake. Assuming that it was a mistake, committing the same mistake again and again, prima facie, did not appear inadvertent, when the assessee was fully aware of the fact that the date of audit report was January 12, 2011 and not September 29, 2010, as claimed in the returns filed. The question whether the mistake committed by the assessee in referring to the date of audit report had a live link to whether or not the income had escaped assessment and was to be considered by the next fact finding authority, namely by the Appellate Tribunal and not by the High Court. (AY. 2010-11) Doosan Bobcat India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 420 ITR 84 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [AP HC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Notice-Alternative remedy-Notice issued after proper sanction-No return submitted in response to notice-Notice cannot be quashed. [S. 147, 151, Art. 226]. Dismissing the writ petition the Court held that the notice of reassessment had been issued with the approval of the Commissioner and it was in consonance of section 151 of the Act and without any apparent illegality. After issuance of notice under section 148, the first course was to file the return. Except for filing return, the assessee had taken all other courses such as filing of objections and invoking the writ jurisdiction of the court. Even if an order were passed after reopening pursuant to the notice, the assessee would have a statutory remedy as provided in the Act. The notice of reassessment could not be quashed.(AY.2012-13) Naval Kishore Khaitan v. PCIT (2020) 428 ITR 62 (AP)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Jharkhand HC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Notice-When alternative remedy of appeal is available under statute, it would not be appropriate and proper for High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on High Court.[S.147, Art. 226] Notices issued under section 148 to assessee had been challenged on ground that assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 by ITO was ab initio void.Court observed that petitioner had approached High Court without availing alternative remedy available under Act.Further, petitioner had not been able to put forth any cogent and satisfactory reason for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by High Court under article 226. Court also observed that since notice under section 148 had culminated into an order of assessment which could be assailed before appellate authority, writ petition could not be entertained. (AY. 2010-11) Kasautii Jewellers v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 49 / 195 DTR 389 / 317 CTR 675 (Jharkhand)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Amalgamation-Revenue not informed about amalgamation-Return filed in name of assessee-Company and refund received in its name-Notice is held to be valid.[S.147, Art. 226] An order of assessment was challenged on the ground that the entity to whom notice was issued and based upon which the order had been passed, did not exist at the time of issuance of notice and passing of the order. Dismissing the petition the court held that , the stand of the petitioner to the effect that proceedings for reassessment ought to have been issued only in the name of OGT was clearly misconceived in so far as the Department had not been put to notice of the factum of amalgamation of OAS with the petitioner OGT till September 14, 2017 and the petitioner had also, by filing a return in the name of OAS and receiving refunds addressed to OAS, furthered the impression that OAS was an existing entity. Thus there was no infirmity in law in so far as the proceedings for reassessment were concerned and they were valid.(AY.2010-11) Oasys Green Tech Private Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 426 ITR 124/ 194 DTR 96/ 316 CTR 897/ 272 Taxman 147 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [Mad.HC]-[S.148] Reassessment-Service of notice-Notice to an authorised representative-Representative appeared before the Assessing Officer-Alternative remedy-Writ is held to be nor maintainable. [S. 147,246, 292BB, Art. 226] Assessee filed writ petition against reassessment order contending that notice under section 148, was not served on him. Dismissing the petition the Court held that notice to an authorized representatives of an assessee is a notice to assessee, when it was found that the authorized representative had appeared on behalf of assessee in view of section 292BB of the Act. In view of alternative remedy available to assessee to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Chandrasekaran v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 452 (Mad.)(HC)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [(Chennai)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-No scrutiny assessment-Non-compete Fee-Claiming a huge exemption of income by making incomplete, untrue and wrong claim-Primary facts not completely, correctly and truly disclosed in return-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S.143(1), 148] The Tribunal held that the primary facts were not completely, correctly and truly disclosed by the assessee in the return and there was clearly an attempt to evade taxes. There was a tangible material before the Assessing Officer to reopen the concluded assessment. Thus, the reassessment was valid. Applied ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P.Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). (AY.2001-02) K. Srikanth v. ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 272 / 195 DTR 17/ 206 TTJ 273 (Chennai(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Delhi)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-Incriminating material found during search-Accommodation entries-Reassessment is held to be justified-Failure to prove identity of investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction-Addition Justified. [S.68, 148] Tribunal held that incriminating material found during search that the lenders are accommodation entries providers hence reassessment is held to be justified. On merit the assessee failed to prove identity of investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction accordingly the addition was Justified. (AY. 2006-07) RMP Holding P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 83 ITR 108/ 206 TTJ 1 (UO)(Delhi)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Hyd.)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-Falsification of accounts-Statement of chairman-Un explained loans-Interest-Reassessment is held to be valid-Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 2(22)(e),148] Tribunal held that the AO had come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income on the ground that falsification of books of account and also manipulation of accounts for the last several years as well as the statement given by the chairman and material evidence, which were necessary to be considered, were not at all considered by the AO while passing the order under S. 143(3) of the Act. The AO after recording detailed reasons, had reopened the assessment and, therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise because the AO had not expressed any opinion. Accordingly the reassessment is held to be valid. On facts the CIT(A) had given the directions to the AO with regard to the addition of Rs. 20 crores on account of unexplained loans and advances and with regard to segregation of interest income and assessing it as income from other sources and treating the income from trading in shares as speculation income.(AY.2005-06) Elem Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 319 (Hyd.)(Trib.) Fincity Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 319 (Hyd.)(Trib.) Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 319 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Jaipur)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-Sale of property by mischief and forgery-Neither disclosing sale transaction nor offering capital gains-Reassessment held to be justified-Addition is held to be justified. [S.148] Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the execution of the sale agreement was not in dispute but the assessee claimed that subsequently the sale agreement was cancelled. When the assessee had neither disclosed the transaction nor offered any capital gains from the transaction the information received by the Assessing Officer based on these documents, to which the assessee was a party, constituted tangible material to form the belief that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. The reassessment was valid. As regards the cancellation agreement was not found during the course of search and seizure action nor referred to during the course of assessment proceedings. It surfaced for the first time after the assessment order was completed by the Assessing Officer. This clearly showed that this was an afterthought and a manufactured document in support of the claim of non-receipt of sale consideration. The agreement which was found during the course of search was not in dispute and there was no scope for any inference or possibility against non-receipt of sale consideration as the agreement stated in clear terms that the entire sale consideration was received at the time of the agreement and that possession was handed over to the buyer. Accordingly, where the assessee was also a party to the illegal transaction of purchase and sale of the land the stand of the assessee of subsequent cancellation of the agreement did not inspire confidence. The assessee claimed to have purchased this property for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs only whereas the plot of land was sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 38.50 lakhs. In the absence of any development during this intervening period of one year from the date of purchase and till the date of sale, the appreciation of value from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 38.50 lakhs indicated the involvement of the parties in mischievous acts. (AY.2012-13) Suresh Kumar Sharma v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 1 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Mum.)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-Information received in a subsequent assessment year is a valid reason to reopen an assessment for earlier year-Compensation taxable as income from house property. [S.22, 143(1)] Tribunal held that information received in a subsequent assessment year is a valid reason to reopen an assessment for earlier year when the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Tribunal also held that compensation received by the assessee from National Textile corporation Ltd vide a decree passed by the Court of Small Cause at Bombay on 19 th July 2007 is taxable under the head house property on the basis of rule of consistency. (ITA No. 7584/Mum/ 2019 dt.13-7-2020)(AY. 201011) Rak Construction Project Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) The Chamber’s Journal-September-P. 113 (Mum.)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Mum.)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-Non-Resident-information from investigation wing of the income tax department-In return the assessee was shown as resident-Foreign Bank deposits-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S.6(1),9(1), 69, 148] The assessee is an individual. The assessee had filed her income tax return, on 29th July 2006, disclosing an income of Rs 1,70,800 for the relevant previous year, but subsequently the investigation wing of the income tax department, received information that the assessee is having a bank account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA Geneva. Based on this information the assessment was reopened and a fresh assessment was made. Assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that the assessee was non-resident for the relevant assessment year hence the department has no jurisdiction to question the alleged deposit in other countries. The Tribunal up held that reassessment on the ground that in the return of income filed by her she has shown as resident. As the prima facie belief of the AO that the assessee was resident is held to be valid. Accordingly the ground of reopening of assessment is up held by the Tribunal. (AY. 2006-07) Renu T. Tharani (Ms.) v. Dy.CIT(IT)(2020) 184 ITD 565 / 192 DTR 9/ 206 TTJ 521 (Mum.)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Mum.)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Information from Local Authority stating that building competition certificate was not issued-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S.80IB(10), 148] Tribunal held that only in course of assessment proceedings for immediately succeeding assessment year 2012-13 that Assessing Officer was intimated by local authority-Municipal Corporation that Building Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate was not issued to assessee till date on account of certain failure on its part as regards complying with building 'Intimation of Disapproval' conditions-Further, since on basis of verifications carried out in course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2012-13, Assessing Officer had also gathered that built-up area of all 3BHK flats in project was more than prescribed area of 1000 sq. ft. which clearly contravened norms prescribed in section 80-IB(10)(c). Accordingly the reassessment proceeding is held to be valid. (AY. 2011-12) Harshvardhan Constructions v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 299 / 183 ITD 497 / 207 TTJ 663 (Mum.)(Trib.)

===> {In Favor of Revenue} [C(T)(Vishakha)(Trib. ]-[S.147] Reassessment-With in four years-Depreciation at higher rate-Not examining the issue at the time of original assessment-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S.32, 143(1)] Tribunal held that the assessment was completed u/s 143(1) and the AO had not examined the allowability of higher depreciation hence the reassessment is held to be valid. (AY.2011-12 to 201516). Arihant Constructions v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 171 (Vishakha)(Trib.)