9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) that he had not given the Assessing Officer reasonable opportunity- (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the assessee company (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. As per the mandate of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the appeal shall be reheard and the Assessing Officer shall be given reasonable opportunity as per provisions of Clause(3) of Rule 46A of the Rules, 1962 and dispose of the matter accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 244/Del/2007 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee company had filed the return of income for the AY 1999-2000 on 31.12.1999 declaring a loss of ₹ 1,84,500/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act on 16.06.2000. Subsequently, based on the strength of information received from another Assessing Officer namely Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1), New Delhi that the assessee company invested a sum of ₹ 26,00,000/- in cash in the form of share application money for purchase of shares of M/s. P.P.C. Business Products (P) Ltd. during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1999-2000 issued notice u/s 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer in utter disregard of provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 3. No one was present on behalf of the respondent-assessee. It is seen from the record, the notice could not be served on the assessee company despite best of efforts of the Department and hence we proceed to pass the ex-parte order on merits. At the first instance, we shall deal with preliminary issue on the validity of reopening proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) had held the reopening assessment invalid as according to him there was no reason to believe that income chargeable tax as escaped assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the reason to believe cannot be equated with reason to suspect and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India, (1972) 84 ITR 616 (Del)]. It is also equally settled law that at the time of issuance of reassessment notice, is not mandatory that the Assessing Officer should come to a conclusive finding that income has escaped assessment and, therefore, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the reassessment proceeding invalid. Now, we shall deal with the merits of the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) during the course of proceedings before him had accepted the additional evidence in the form of MOU with M/s. Mahavir Trade Links Private Ltd. and confirmation from them. Without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer, this offends the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 which is reproduced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
