Case Law Details
ITO Vs Kuber Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
There is no dispute that the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee in respect of assessment years, beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years as contemplated under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 151 of the Act, which stipulates that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no notice u/s 148 of the Act shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. Ld. AO himself recorded in the order that the approval of the Additional CIT Range-V, New Delhi was obtained and stated that it was so u/s 151(2) of the Act. As a matter of fact in respect of the cases where notice u/s 148 was proposed to be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151(1) is applicable but not Section 151(2) of the Act. Section 151(2) clearly states that it is applicable to the cases other than the cases falling under sub-section (1). A plain reading of Section 151 makes it amply clear that the learned AO misread the same and did not follow the mandate of the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Act inasmuch as the case in hand relates to the proposed notice u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. On this ground, assessee succeeds.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Challenging the order dated 23.9.2014 in Appeal Nos. 0267/2014-15 and 0301/2013-14 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi (in short “CIT(A)} in relation to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2006-07 respectively, assessee preferred both these appeals.
2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessment was completed in both the years u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, subsequently, there were search operations conducted on the premises of one Shri Surendra Kumar Jain group of companies and after further enquiries, it was found that Surender Kumar Jain group provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries with the help of several bank accounts opened in the name of several proprietary concerns and companies in which either he himself or his employees were directors/proprietor. After receiving information from the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) Unit-VI(2) to the effect that the assessee’s name also appeared in the list of beneficiaries who had taken accommodation entries in the garb of share application money, loan, gifts, bogus sales/purchases or some other ostensible business transaction through the bank accounts existing in the name of the paper dummy concerns/entities operated by the entry operators, learned AO formed an opinion that there are reasons to believe that income of the assessee company to the extent of Rs.25 lacs had escaped assessment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
