9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/Del/2015, seeking stay of the assessment proceedings. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) That the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-D7, New Delhi has wrongly assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 263. 2) That the order passed u/s 263 by the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-D7, New Delhi, is bad on various factual & legal grounds. The observations of the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-07, New Delhi are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. 3) That the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-D7, New Delhi had erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 on the basis of incorrect facts. The observations of the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-07, New Delhi are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. 4) That the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-D7, New Delhi, is incorrect in ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs received vide cheque no. 797383 drawn on ABN Amro Bank on 3rd February, 2006 issued by M/s Moderate Credit Corporation Ltd. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are as follows: "Reasons for re-opening the case in the case of M/s Pure Plast Ltd., A.Y.-2006-07 Information has been received that a survey operation u/s 133A was conducted by Department in the case of Sh Aseem Kumar Gupta and his group at various residential and business premises. When confronted with the evidences gathered, Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta admitted to have provided accommodation entries to several beneficiaries with the help of several bank accounts opened in the name of several proprie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the assessment for Asstt. Year 2006-07. I am also satisfied that it was on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for the assessment for above assessment year, that the income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- has escaped assessment with the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, four years has been expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, and no scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) in this case for the said assessment year, the reasons recorded above for the purpose or reopening of assessment are put up for kind satisfaction or Ld. Addl. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant made a vehement argument that the issue of receipt of share application money was examined by the Assessing Officer and after considering the details filed by the assessee such as the confirmation letters from the share applicants etc., the Assessing Officer had come to conclusion that the receipt of share application money was a genuine transaction and therefore, chose not to make any addition under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the ld. Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 263 cannot substitute his opinion in the place of that of the Assessing Officer, in support of his contention the very same issue was examined by the Assessing Officer. He drawn our attention to the questionnaire dt. 2nd July, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the form of share application money as it is believed to have been accommodation entries received from one Sh. Asim Kumar Gupta. After considering the material on record made available during the course of re-assessment proceedings, this item was not added by the Assessing Officer while framing the reassessment order. Then the question that crops up for our consideration is whether the CIT in exercise of his powers vested under Section 263 of the Act, can revise that reassessment order with the intention of bringing into the tax some other items which do not form part of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice under Section 148. The identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the Commissioner of Income-tax could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act." 7. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case, we hold that in the present case also the Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, we quash the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, New Delhi, under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in full. 8. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee on merit as above, the stay application no. 380/Del/2015 filed in ITA No. 1838/Del/2015 has become infructuous. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The decision is pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
