News Update

Govt scraps ban on export of onionFormer Delhi Congress chief Arvinder Singh Lovely joins BJP with three moreUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedGST - Payment of pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the prescribed Form APL-01 - Petitioner attributes it to technical glitches - Respondent is the proper authority to decide the question of fact: HC2nd Session of India-Nigeria Joint Trade Committee held in AbujaGST - Since SCN is bereft of any details and suffers from infirmities that go to the root of the cause, SCN is quashed and set aside: HC1717 candidates to contest elections in phase 4 of Lok Sabha ElectionsGST - Once Appellate Authority comes to the conclusion that SCN was issued by an officer who was not competent; reply was also considered by an incompetent authority and the Competent Authority had not applied its independent mind, Appellate Authority could not have assumed original jurisdiction and proceeded further with the matter: HC7th India-Indonesia Joint Defence Cooperation Committee meeting held in New DelhiGST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, the same cannot be sustained: HCMining sector registers record production in FY 2023-24GST - If the proper officer was of the view that the reply is unclear and unsatisfactory, he could have sought further details by providing such opportunity - Having failed to do so, order cannot be sustained - Matter remanded: HCAnother quake of 6.0 magnitude rocks Philippines; No damage reported so farI-T - Initial burden of proof rested on assessee to substantiate his claim of having incurred expenditure on improvement of property: ITATTrade ban: Israel hits back against Turkey with counter-measuresI-T - Agricultural income can be treated by ITO as undisclosed income in absence of any substantial / corroborative material to prove same: ITATCanada arrests three persons in alleged killing of Sikh separatistI-T - Income from sale of property has to be classified & characterised only in manner of computation as per section 45(2): ITATCus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political events
 
I-T - Assessing officers are not barred from seeking information from Investigation Wing, before applying their mind for reopening a settled assessment: HC

By TIOL News Service

AHEMDABAD, MAY 10, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH IS - Whether the proviso to Section 133(6) allows the AO to call for relevant information from another Investigation Wing of Department, before making up his mind for reopening an assessment. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The assessee companies, engaged in processing man made fabrics having a manufacturing unit at Surat, had returned nil income for the relevant AY. The assessment was also completed by the AO. However, later on, the AO had received an information from investigation wing of Kolkata making reference of shell companies which had given accommodation entries for share premium in Surat based companies. Further, the data also showed that during the relevant AY, the assessees had accepted share capital/share premium from one Galore Private Limited for issuance of 37000 shares at a sizeable premium. Accordingly, the AO noted that since the investor companies were proved to be shell companies indulging in providing accommodation entries, hence, the said premium received by the assessees from such companies were not genuine. Subsequently, the AO had reason to believe that the said premium received had escaped the assessment for the year under consideration and thus, issued reopening notices. Thereupon, the assessees objected such reopening but, failed to persuade the AO to drop such notice.

High Court held that,

++ the Counsel for the assessee has contended that the AO had called for certain information from the Investigation Wing and upon being supplied the material, formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment which was wholly impermissible. This Court while rejecting such a contention in case of Aishwarya Dying Mills Pvt. Ltd., placed reliance on Sec. 133 without noticing provision to sub-section (6). In the process, the Court undoubtedly made a reference to the powers of an AO u/s 133, in particular, sub-section (6) which limits the powers of any authority below a certain rank in calling for such information when the assessment is not pending, without the approval of the higher authority. However, the contours of the powers of a Revenue Officer u/s 133 was not the sole or even the prime basis for the Court in case of Aaishwarya while rejecting the contention;

++ after giving detailed reasons why merely bacause the AO in a given case calls for information from another wing of the Department before making up his mind whether there was sufficient material to reopen the assessment, would not invalidate the proceedings, reference was made to the provisions contained in Sec. 133(6) to highlight that the powers of the AO in this respect are quite wide. He has merely contacted the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata and called for certain information based on the process of shortlisting. The Court thus had made a clear distinction between exercise of powers u/s 133(6) and the act of the AO in the said case of calling for information from another wing of the Department. Proviso to sub-section (6) does not take away the power of the AO to call for relevant information. It only provides for approval of the higher authority before exercising such power in cases where the assessment is not pending;

++ therefore, for the reasons cited in the case of Aishwarya Dying Mills Ltd., we do not find that the notice of reopening can be invalidated on this ground. We find no such inhibition in the act. If there is preliminary or prima facie material with him to trigger a further inquiry inter or intra-departmentally and the AO calls for information from another wing or office of the Department, and which information he utilizes and on the basis of reliable information so provided to him he forms a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, we do not find that such process can be faulted. Accepting the contention of the Counsel for the assessee would amount to rendering an AO a mute spectator once the assessment is over and allowed to act only after some information is provided to him by some other Departmental authority. There is neither any statutory force nor any reason to limit his role in this respect.

(See 2018-TIOL-877-HC-AHM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.