Onus Lies On AO To Provide Reasons To Disbelieve The Bank Statements And Supporting Documents For Reopening Assessment: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the onus lies on the AO to provide reasons to disbelieve the bank statements and supporting documents for reopening the assessment.

The bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has observed that the AO has acted in excess of the limit of his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in the exercise of powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner’s case was selected for scrutiny, and a notice was issued. By notice, a questionnaire seeking details regarding loans and advances of secured and unsecured loans with names and address details, interest payment, loan confirmation details of unsecured loans, details of the source and capacity of the creditor, the complete address of the creditor with PAN, and bank statements were sought. All queries were answered with specifics and supporting documents. An assessment order was passed.

After four years, the respondent issued a notice to reopen the assessment, which was responded to by a letter dated April 8, 2015.

The petitioner filed its objections and pointed out that all material facts were fully and truly disclosed in the original assessment. The original assessment was completed, and no fresh or tangible material for re-opening beyond 4 years was found. The reopening was based on a mere change of opinion; information, which was the basis for "reasons recorded," was not made available.

The respondent contended that the petitioner has failed to ‘fully and truly’ disclose material facts in the original assessment. The department urged that the department only make out a ‘prima facie case’ on the basis of which the department could reopen the case, and the ‘sufficiency and correctness’ of the material were not things to be considered at the initial stage.

The court held that there was no tangible material mentioned in the recorded reasons to conclude that income had escaped assessment, and the nature of the information was also not disclosed.

Case Title: M/s. Aditi Constructions Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 783 Of 2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

Date: 04/05/2023

Counsel For Petitioner: Rucha Vaidya

Counsel For Respondent: Suresh Kumar

Click Here To Read The Order