9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of shares, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. We are of the view that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is comprehensive and well reasoned and we are not inclined to interfere in the same Further, the Ld. CIT-A also observed that the Assessing Officer has not disposed off the objection of the assessee to the reasons recorded in accordance to the decision in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court ). The Revenue has not brought before us any material to contradict the factual findings of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 2897/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member And Sh. O. P. Kant, Accountant Member Appellant by Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by None present ORDER Per O. P. Kant, A. M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 31/03/2010 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Delhi (for short the CIT-A ) for assessment year 2001-02, raising following grounds: i. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that reopening of the case u/s 147/148 was not justified and quashing the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Rs.17,60,000/- 3.1 Again, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19/03/2008 requiring the assessee to file return of income. The assessee responded that return already filed might be treated as return filed in response to notice dated 19/3/2008. A copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment was also supplied to the assessee. In the impugned assessment order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that during reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2002-03 the assessee filed a statement of affairs for assessment year 2001-02 also and according to which, the investment of assessee in equity shares stood at ₹ 10 lakh. The Assessing Officer further noted from the returns filed with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in the case of Sh. P.K. Tiwari, who was also one of Directors in Century Communication Ltd. , along with assessee, investment in shares of M/s. Century Communication Ltd. was seen. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that vide letter dated 10/05/2005, during earlier reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the assessee declared investment in shares of M/s Century Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Sh. Rakesh Agarwal Vs. ACIT, reported in 225 ITR 496. 4.2 We have heard the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on record including the paper book containing 1-20 pages filed by the Ld. counsel of the assessee on 06/08/2010. The Ld. CIT-A has quashed the reassessment proceeding with following findings: FINDINGS: After going through the observations of the Assessing Officer, submissions of the AR of the appellant and the various judicial pronouncements on the issue these grounds of the appellant are being finalized on the basis of the following observations:- a) On going through the assessment order it is observed that the Assessing Officer has stated that for assessment year 2001-02 the total issued, paid up and subscribed capital of the company was declared only to the extent of ₹ 75,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer however came to the conclusion that on the basis of this discrepancy, there was adequate reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly action u/s 147/148 was justified. The Assessing Officer however has not specifically mentioned the discrepancies and has also ign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure has also not been followed by the Assessing Officer by recording the reasons for re6 opening of the assessment and at the same time the objections filed by the appellant with regard to reasons for re-opening u/s 148 have not been disposed of. The Assessing Officer has not logically followed the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and therefore this action of the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed. Keeping in view the above observations, in my opinion the action u/s 48/147 of the Income Tax Act taken by the Assessing Officer is not valid firstly because on the same issue, the earlier Assessing Officer had conducted specific enquiries and had come to a conclusion in favour of the appellant. The Assessing Officer was therefore not justified to take action u/s 148 without having strong reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment . In the assessment order also the Assessing Officer has not brought out any facts which clearly indicate that the appellant had not disclosed full material facts on the earlier occasion. I am therefore inclined to agree with the submissions and arguments of the Authorized Representative of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue relating to the shares held by the assessee and also recorded the statement of the broker through which shares in question were purchased. The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that a copy of statement of the broker Sh. Dalip Kumar Singhal, was produced before him, wherein it has been mentioned that books of accounts were produced for verification and the Assessing Officer considered the matter in-depth. According to the Ld. CIT(A), a detailed enquiry had already been conducted by the Assessing Officer earlier and there was no additional information or fresh facts and thus it was merely change of opinion on same set of facts and therefore there was no valid reason for reopening the assessment. The Ld. CIT-A has also observed that no proper reasons have been recorded. Further, the Ld. CIT-A also observed that the Assessing Officer has not disposed off the objection of the assessee to the reasons recorded in accordance to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited, 259 ITR 19(SC). The Revenue has not brought before us any material to contradict the factual findings of ld. CIT(A). 4.6 In our considered opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT-A on the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the examination of the stock broker company and the statement of Sh. D.K. Singhal confirming the amount of investment in these shares. Further keeping in view the nature of share business, share transactions are not once based on the face value of the share and are liable to fluctuations depending on the financial strongly and various other factors of the company. In the present case there are no grounds to disbelieve the transaction reflected by the appellant. Even if the Assessing Officer did have an apprehension addition unaccounted money has changed needs, there has to be some material evidence on the basis of which any addition can be made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act. Since in the present set of circumstances there is no material to indicate that any unexplained investment has been made by the appellant while purchasing the shares, there is no justification for making this addition merely on the basis of apprehension or services. The various judicial pronouncements have settled this issue in favour of the appellant and accordingly in my opinion this addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, this ground of the appellant is allowed. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
