Soignee R. Kothari vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
147: Though assessee claims that she is a non-resident & that onus is on the revenue to show that the money in the HSBC Geneva account is taxable in India, the non-cooperation with the Revenue by signing the consent waiver form shows that she has something to hide and makes it an unfit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction
In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations /questions are being raised about the funds a person would make available the documents which would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the mind of the Authorities. The conduct on the part of the Petitioner and her uncle, in not being forthcoming, to our mind leads us to the conclusion that this is not a fit case where we should exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and/or interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. If a person has nothing to hide, we believe the person would have cooperated in obtaining the Bank Statements
Gurpreet Kaur vs. ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
143(3): In an AIR scrutiny assessment, the AO is not entitled to widen the scope of scrutiny without approval of the CIT as per CBDT’s Instruction. Such an assessment order is not sustainable
In fact, what the AO did was to widen the scrutiny. Now, para 2 of CBDT Instruction is specific when it states that where it is felt that apart from the AIR information, there is potential escapement of income more than Rs. 10 lakhs, the case may be taken up for wider scrutiny with the approval of the administrative Commissioner. So, the proper course for the AO before making these additional enquiries would have been to take approval from the administrative Commissioner to widen the scrutiny. This, however, was not done and therefore, the action of the AO is violative of the CBDT Instruction
Anugrah Varshney vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)
147/ 148: Law laid down in Jet Airways India 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy 336 ITR 136 that if AO does not make any addition for the reason stated for reopening, he cannot add any other income holds good even for years when Explanation 3 to s. 147 is operative
The argument of the Ld. DR that the ratio propounded in Jet Airways India vs. CIT 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT(2011) 336 ITR 136 does not apply since those cases related to assessment years when Explanation 3 to section 147 was not on the statute, we find has not merit since in the above mentioned decisions the Court has interpreted the provision of section 147 on first principle to hold that only if addition are made on account of income which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment that any other addition can be made. It is not Explanation 3 which had been interpreted in favour of the assessee in these cases. In fact we find that Explanation 3 empowers AO’s to make assessment on any matter which comes to their notice during assessment proceedings. But the same alongwith section 147 has been interpreted as stated above. Therefore, the presence or absence of Explanation 3 to section 147 does not nullify the interpretation given by the courts in the above stated judgments
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…