Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
13.01.2011 - Recent Update as on 13.01.2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011

1.  AGR INVESTMENT LTD VS.  ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER,  WP(C) NO.7517/2010,  JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 7TH JANUARY, 2011,  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

The petitioner is desirous of adjudication by the writ court with regard to the merits of the controversy. In fact, the petitioner requires this Court to adjudge the sufficiency of the material and to make a roving enquiry that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act is not tenable. 

Brief Facts

The assessing officer has assumed jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 147 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act solely on the basis of certain statements recorded by the Directorate of Investigation without forming an independent opinion. It is urged by him that the expression used in Section 147 of the Act is „reason to believe and not „reason to suspect and it is the settled legal position that there should be direct nexus or live link between the materials relied upon by the revenue and the belief that income has escaped assessment. It is contended that on a bare reading of the reason to believe, it is evident that the jurisdiction to reassess the income has been assumed on the basis of unspecific and vague information which cannot justify the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The entire foundation of the belief that the income has escaped assessment is that “certain investigations were carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, Jhandewalan” though no particulars had been given on what basis the Directorate of Investigation had come to the conclusion that accommodation entries were given to the petitioner. It is urged that no details of the persons who supposedly alleged that the transactions of the petitioner were bogus were provided and further the nature of the alleged accommodation entries have not been referred to in the reason to believe. In essence, the submission in this regard is that there is complete absence of material which can be said to have a live link with or be the basis of formation of the purported belief or reason to believe that the petitioners income had escaped assessment. The allegation that the transactions entered into by the petitioner were bogus is totally without any substance in the absence of any materials/details provided.   

Judgement

The petitioner is desirous of adjudication by the writ court with regard to the merits of the controversy. In fact, the petitioner requires this Court to adjudge the sufficiency of the material and to make a roving enquiry that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act is not tenable. The same does not come within the ambit and sweep of exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the assessee to participate in the re-assessment proceedings and put forth its stand and stance in detail to satisfy the assessing officer that there was no escapement of taxable income. We may hasten to clarify that any observation made in this order shall not work to the detriment of the plea put forth by the assessee during the re-assessment proceedings. 

(Please click here for judgment)

   

2.   GURUPRERNA ENTERPRISES Vs. ASSTT. CIT,    I.T.A. Nos 255, 256 & 257/Mum/2010.    (ITAT- MUMBAI) (BANCH-‘G’)

Whether the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is bad in law, when during the course of search operation on premises of person and its concerns, a joint venture agreement entered into between two parties and assessee (M/s Guruprerna Enterprises) was seized. The contention of the assessee was that this is a disclosed documents and it is also undisputed fact that no incriminating material or evidences indicating unaccounted income, transactions or assets relating to the assessee were found.

Held_that_“A joint venture agreement was found in which the assessee is a party. The assessee has certain rights and duties as per terms and conditions of this agreement. It cannot be said that the agreement does not belong to him. In our humble opinion, the joint venture agreement belongs to all three parties. As the agreement which is seized also belongs to the assessee, in our opinion, the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Vijay Bhai N. Chandrani (supra) and in the case of Meghmani Organics Ltd. (supra) does not apply.”

And

Further held that Under Section 153A “only the assessments pending before the AO for completion shall abate and that under section 153A the issues decided in the assessment cannot be reconsidered and re adjudicate, unless there is some fresh material found during the course of search in relation to such points”.

(Please click here for judgment)

  

What's New
  • SERVICE TAX CIRCULAR NO.132/1/2011-ST - Fumigation of export cargo in compliance of export obligation – whether taxable under ‘cleaning services'  (Click for detail)

  • Circular No. 4/2011-CUSTOMS - Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009  (Click for detail)

  • Notification No. 1/2011-CUSTOMS - Customs duty lowered to 5 per cent on import of all items of machinery, including prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliances, control gear and transmission equipment and auxiliary equipment (including those required for testing and quality control) and components, required for the initial setting up of a solar power generation project or facility  (Click for detail)

  • Notification No. 2/2011 – Customs - Customs duty exemption on import of Raw Sugar, Refined or white sugar & Raw sugar if imported by a bulk consumer  (Click for detail)

  • Public Notice No.21 (RE-2011)/2009-2014 - Procedure relating to tracing and tracking of export consignment of pharmaceuticals and drugs  (Click for detail)

  • Now Pay Your Provident Fund Contributions by Electronic Mode  (Click for detail)  

      

    
"It is easier to go down a hill than up, but the view is best from the top"
    
Thanks for your valuable time 

"Voice of CA"

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA
Member  Central Council - ICAI
Former Chairman - NIRC
Mob : 9811080342,
agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com  
    
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533,
mukbansal80@gmail.com 

 

  

 

  

 

 

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now