DCIT v. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 147

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• S. 147 : Reassessment-Beyond four years-Tangible material-Reason to believe-In the form of documents, relevant to the issue -Sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. [S. 148] Where the “reasons to believe” forming part of the Section 147 of the Act, clearly point to the fact that the reopening of assessment was based on information accessible by the AO that a substantial amount of unaccounted income of promoters/directors was introduced in the closely held companies of the assessee group through Shirish Chandrakant Shah, alleged to be a Mumbai based accommodation entry provider. It was held that information or “tangible material” which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for parties, the appeal was heard finally. The Commissioner of Income tax (hereafter “the revenue”) appeals against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court 1, which quashed a notice issued under Section 147/148, Income Tax Act (hereafter “the Act”) seeking to re-open the respondent’s assessment, for the assessment year (AO) 2010-11. The respondent is hereafter, referred to as “the assessee”. 2. The facts are that search proceedings were conducted- by the revenue, under the Act, at the office premise s of one Shirish Chandrakant Shah on 09.04.2013 at Mumbai; during the course of the search, several materials- and documents, were seized. On analysis of such documents, the revenue was of

opinion that Shirish Chandrakant Sha h was providing accommodation entries, through various companies controlled and managed by him, and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the business (of accommodation entries provided by Shri Shirish Shah) through bogus companies. This was based on the fact that many companies wh ich invested amounts towards share capital on high premiums -in the assessee’s company were also controlled and managed by Shri Shirish Shah. The AO, on a consideration of these and other materials, was of opinion that the assessee was also a beneficiary of the accommodation entries provided by Shri Shirish Shah. On the basis of this opinion the impugned notice to re -assess the income of the as sessee for AY 2010-2011, was issued on 31.3.2017.

3. The assessee is a private limited company and had filed return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 25.9.2010. The return was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny. On 31.3.2017, the impugned notice was issued. The AO also furnished reasons recorded by him for issuing notice of reassessment. 4. The “reasons to believe” which were the basis for re -opening the assessment, recorded that search proceedings were conducted in the M.R. Shah group and Champalal group of companies on 20.09.2016 and that during the course of previous searches in the case of Shirish Chandra kant Shah, a n accommodation entry provider in Mumbai, it was observed that huge amounts of unaccounted moneys of promoters/directors were introduced in closely held companies of the assessee’s group.

The reasons to believe also stated that the chairman of M.R. Shah Group was asked about the application money received by the assessee, during the statement- recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, on 18.11.2016 ; in the course of that statement, he disclosed that M/s. Garg Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had d eclared ₹ 6.36 crores as undisclosed cash utilized for investment in the share capital of the assessee, M.R. Shah Logist ics Pvt. Ltd. through various companies. The assessee company’s chairman voluntarily

disclosed the statements made by Garg Logistics under Section 13 2 of the Act, about the declaration by Garg Logistics P Ltd, under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS). 5. The AO, in the reasons to believe, compared the investments made by Pravin Chandra Aggarwal, i.e. the assessee company’s Chairman with form no.2 of the assessee company and the records of the Registrar of Companies and prepared a chart, which is reproduced in a chart below “On comparison of such data following discrepancies are noted; Name of the Investor Amount of investment received by M R Shah Logistics Pvt Ltd as per form no. 2 file by it with ROC

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

2.2 It is also noticed that assessee company had received credit amount in its books but has failed to establish that the cash declared by Garg logistics Pvt Ltd under Income Declaration scheme was not actually the cash of the assessee -company. Assessee had on ly submitted Income Declaration Form no.2 of Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd and failed to provide documentary evidence of investment of cash declared by Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd in the assessee company. Even the list submitted by assessee had discrepancies with data submitted to registrar of companies as discussed in above para. In other words, the assessee has not been able to establish that the income admitted under IDS 2016 by Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd. went in the books of investor companies. It is worth to highligh t that Investor companies are independent paper companies and they have provided entries independently and not through Garg Logistics Pvt Ltd.

12. The learned ASG submitted that the assessee company was not able to link the income disclosed under the IDS 2016 by Garg Logistics with the investment by the companies who had applied for shares in the assessee. Learned counsel submitted that the investor companies were independent – paper fronts which had provided entries. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court erroneously concluded that the reassessment was based upon the IDS declaration of Garg Logistics. In fact, the disclosure was voluntarily provided by the assessee’s chairman during the search by a statement under Section 132(4).

13. It was pointed out that the AO’s opinion has to be based upon some objective material on the record as to constitute tangible material. The sufficiency of that material would ordinarily not be scrutinized by the courts in exercise of judicial review. It was submitted lastly that on perusal of the circular of CBDT dated 01.09.2016, particularly, the answer to the queries are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Learned senior counsel for the assessee , Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, urged that information of share investment of ₹ 6.25 crores by Garg Logistics made through different companies, but owned by it, was made in its declaration in the IDS.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

8. The assessee objected to the re -opening notice by letter dated 29.8.2017. The objections were rejected by the AO by an order dated 30.10.2017. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugning the revenue’s action in se eking to re -open the assessment . The revenue resisted the challenge, and justified the re -opening (of assessment) notice. 9. The High Court , by the impugned judgment, was of the opinion that the AO had no information to conclude that the disclosure by Garg Logistics was not from funds of that declarant but was in fact the unaccounted income of the assessee. The impugned order reasoned that the AO, after recounting the background history of the assessee and background of M.R. Logistics, shifted the burden on assessee to say that the share application money received by it was not its unaccounted income. This, according to the High Court, was erroneous. The impugned judgment was of the opinion that there was no tangible material or reason for the AO to reopen the assessment. The High Court also considered the scheme of Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 and noted that immunity was given in respect of amounts declared and brought to tax in terms of such a scheme. Therefore, the AO could not have relied upon the declaration made by the Garg Logistics to so conclude. The High Court also derived strength from the circular of the CBDT dated 01.09.2016, especially, the answer to Query no.10.

This information was not furnished to the AO and he could not, therefore, have legitimately concluded that such investment was not from the funds of Garg Logistics but was in fact assessee’s unaccounted income. The AO’s approach was contrary to the law in as much as in the very first instance, he sought to place the burden upon the assessee to prove that it was not in fact routing back its own cash through the investments made by the companies – which Garg Logistics (P) Ltd owned up to be unaccounted income in its declaration. 15. It was argued, the reasons recorded that the assessee had received ₹ 6.25 crores as share premium and share capital during FY 2009 -10 from various persons/ companies being accommodation entr y providers which was untaxed and escaped assessment and that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its AY 2010-2011, are not valid and are bad in law and facts of the present case.

placed on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Ltd.2 and the High Court also categorically observed that the reason so recorded lacks validity and conclusions are made on surmises and conjectures which are not permissible under the law and not backed by any material on record. 17. It was argued , the fact that the assessment was originally done under Section 143(1) is not decisive in determining the validity of the impugned reopening. The High Court was conscious of the legal position in this regard so much so that it noted that, the return filed by the assessee was accepted without scrutiny and therefore, the principle of change of opinion preventing the AO from reopening the assessment would have no applicability.

Therefore, reassessment of this amount would lead to double taxation, which is contrary to the scheme of the Act itself. Analysis and conclusions 18. Section 147 of the Act authorizes the re -opening of any assessment of a previous year 3. Section 1 48, which contains the conditions for re -opening

the Income -tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter f or the Court to investigate. The sufficiency of grounds which induce the income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the Income -tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non -disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of reasons for the belief. The expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a Court of law.”

22. A three judge Bench, of this court, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd7 after considering the previous decisions, re-stated the correct position as follows: “5....where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re -open the assessment. Therefore, post -1st April, 19 89, power to re -open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe"..... Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re -assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be base d on fulfillment of certain pre -condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re -opening the assessment, review would take place. 7. One must treat the concept of "change of o pinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re -open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from asse ssment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.”

Operative decision and relief

34. This court is, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court fell into error, in holding that the sequitur to a declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant. 35. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The AO is at liberty to take steps to complete the re -assessment. The revenue’s appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with DCIT v. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited concerns s. 147 : reassessment-beyond four years-tangible material-reason to believe-in the form of documents, relevant to the issue -sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. [s. 148] where the “reasons to believe” forming part of the section 147 of the act, clearly point to the fact that the reopening of assessment was based on information accessible by the ao that a substantial amount of unaccounted income of promoters/directors was introduced in the closely held companies of the assessee group through shirish chandrakant shah, alleged to be a mumbai based accommodation entry provider. it was held that information or “tangible material” which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 22921/2019.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: S. 147 : Reassessment-Beyond four years-Tangible material-Reason to believe-In the form of documents, relevant to the issue -Sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. [S. 148] Where the “reasons to believe” forming part of the Section 147 of the Act, clearly point to the fact that the reopening of assessment was based on information accessible by the AO that a substantial amount of unaccounted income of promoters/directors was introduced in the closely held companies of the assessee group through Shirish Chandrakant Shah, alleged to be a Mumbai based accommodation entry provider. It was held that information or “tangible material” which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean… Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—147—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is Supreme Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 147 and the decision date 2022-03-28; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is DCIT v. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited, the proceeding is Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 22921/2019, and the decision is dated 2022-03-28. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (authoring judge identified in judgment). A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 147. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_CURATIVE_DOCKET_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 147 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Brigade Enterprises v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors — Supreme Court of India · Allowed
• Union of India v. Bharti Airtel & Ors — Supreme Court of India · Allowed
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Reassessment & Reopening

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY