Case Law Details
Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Conclusion: Merely saying that `loan had been advanced’ or `ITR had not been filed’, without disclosing the reasons, which led AO to hold such a belief , did not confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to take action under section 147 and 148.
Held: AO had received an information from ITO, Jaipur that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Smt. Pooja for AY 2011-12 it was found that Shri Vijay had given unsecured loan and as per AST System it had been found that Shri Vijay had not filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, therefore, he had reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2011-12 within the meaning of Section 147. It was held that the information was received by AO from another AO, however, the said information was neither verified nor subjected to any independent examination by AO of assessee and while recording reasons, there was no transaction specific valid material available with AO to form his belief with regard to escapement of income by assessee. Thus, reopening notice could be issued by AO. on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction of another AO/Investigating Agency. Merely saying that `loan had been advanced’ or `ITR had not been filed’, without disclosing the reasons, which led AO to hold such a belief, did not confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to take action u/s 147 and 148. Tribunal held that reopening proceedings initiated by AO were uncalled for and without jurisdiction, therefore, Tribunal quashed the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), Ajmer dated 27/12/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
