In a relief to NDTV Ltd, the Supreme Court Friday 03/04/2020 quashed a notice by the Income Tax department seeking to re-assess the income of the media house for financial year 2007-08. Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Supreme Court held :
In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts before the assessing officer and it was not required to give any further assistance to the assessing officer by disclosure of other facts. It was for the assessing officer at this stage to decide what inference should be drawn from the facts of the case. In the present case the assessing officer on the basis of the facts disclosed to him did not doubt the genuiness of the transaction set up by the assessee.
On 31.03.2015, the revenue sent a notice to the assessee wherein it was stated that the authority has reason to believe that net income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008Â-9 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 148 of the Act. This notice did not give any reasons. The assessee then asked for reasons and thereafter on 04.08.2015 reasons were supplied. The main reason given was that in the following assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009Â-10, the assessing officer had proposed a substantial addition of Rs.642 crores to the account of the assessee on account of monies raised by the assessee through its subsidiaries NDTV BV, The Netherlands, NDTV Networks BV, The Netherlands (NNBV), NDTV Networks International Holdings BV, The Netherlands (NNIH) and NNPLC. The assessee had raised its objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which came to the conclusion that all these transactions with the subsidiary companies in Netherlands were sham and bogus transactions.
Aggrieved, the petitioner NDTV filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notice. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.08.2017. Against Delhi High Court order the assessee has filed Appeal to Supreme Court.
Supreme Court made the following binding remarks at conclusion:
We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show nonÂdisclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed. Having held so, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on whether on facts of this case the revenue could take benefit of the second proviso or not. Therefore, the revenue may issue fresh notice taking benefit of the second proviso if otherwise permissible under law. We make it clear that both the parties shall be at liberty to raise all contentions with regard to the validity of such notice.
