9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suchitra Kamble, JM For The Assessee : Sh. Ved Jain Ashish Goel, CAs For The Revenue : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on factsand in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, is bad and liable to be quashed as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making an addition of ₹ 73,11,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. (ii) That the above-said additions have been made by indulging in surmises conjecture and without bringing any adverse material on record. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming above-said addition ignoring the fact that the same has been made on the basis of the material collected at the back of the assessee without providing copy of the same providing opportunity to rebut the same. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. From the above grounds, it is gathered that the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction for initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO gathered the information from DIT(Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹ 4,72,000/- from M/s ABN Aluminum Industries Pvt. Ltd. by cheque No. 486211 dated 05.03.2001. On the basis of said information, a notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 151 of the Act was the Commissioner or the Pr. Commissioner and not the Addl. Commissioner. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law. The reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT SMC Bench, New Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward-2, Mohindergarh Vs Smt. Sarti Devi and Sh. Rati Ram in ITA Nos. 3098 3099/Del/2014 order dated 27.10.2015 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on the record). It was further submitted that the reopening was done only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and no mind has been applied by the AO, therefore, the reopening was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del.) * Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs G G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) 7. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the AO reopened the assessment after recording the reasons and getting the information from the Investigation Wing. Therefore, the reopening was justified. 8. We have considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT, therefore, the notice u/s. 148 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly declared invalid the Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act issued on 28.3.2011 for the asstt. year in dispute i.e. 2004-05, which is beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year. This Notice has not been issued with the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner upon his satisfaction. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the notice in dispute is invalid and has rightly quashed the same by allowing the appeal of the Assessee. This view has been supported by the various Hon'ble High Courts decisions which includes Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other Division Bench 346 ITR 443; Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. SPL's Sidharth Limited Division Bench 345 ITR 223 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decision in the case of Anirudhsingh Ji Karan Singh Ji Jedeja versus State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SSC 302. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
