9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the report thereby giving sanction to the AO. Nowhere the Commissioner has recorded a satisfaction note not even in brief Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction.- Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3545/Del/2010, C.O. No.138/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2015 - SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Shri Tarun Kumar, Adv. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: This is Revenue s appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.05.2010. The Revenue is aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A) by which he has deleted the addition ofRs.10.50 lacs which was made by A.O. u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee has also filed cross objection wherein it has challenged the reassessment order by challenging that necessary and mandatory conditions of Section147 to 151 of I. T. Act, 1961 were not complied with. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of a specific information from Investigation Wing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 Taxman.com 92012 Delhi: Beautex India P Ltd v CIT 174 Taxman 516 Delhi Indus valley Promoters Ltd v CIT 44 Taxmann.com 364 Delhi: CIT v Youth Construction P Ltd -letters and copies of returns inadequate 367 ITR 3061 226 Taxman 190 Delhi HC -CIT v Navodaya Castles P Ltd- cheque and bank statement inadequate, evidence of positive nature required. 228 Taxman 88 Delhi MAG: CIT-IV V Focus Exports (P) Ltd 264 CTR 258 Delhi: CIT V NR Portfolio P Ltd 366 ITR 110 : CIT V Empire Builtech P Ltd 361 ITR 258 Del, CIT-II v MAF Academy 222 Taxman 59 madras K Sivakumar V ACIT 264 CTR 472 Delhi 1 227 Taxman 373 (SC): N.Tarika Property Invest v CIT- PAN Numbers inadequate53 Taxman 275 MP: Aalok Khanna V CIT Bhopal 227 Taxman 250 Delhi (MAG): CIT v TS Krishnan and Co Ltd 224 Taxman 178 P H (MAG): Sudhir Kumar v CIT III Ludhiana 224 Taxman 176 Gujarat (MAG): Ariel Sarees P Ltd v ITa 364 ITR 53 Delhi: Onassis Axles p Ltd v CIT 226 Taxman 43 P H: CIT v Rippen Ahuja 221 Taxman 143 AP: Gayathri Associates V ITa Hyderabad 134 ITD 283 (AHD): Prakashchandra Singhvi (HUF) v ITO Range 9 Surat 13 ITR (T) 531 Indore Agrawal Coal corporation v Addl CIT Ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of insufficiency of reasons recorded, the assessment itself was bad in law. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following case law. i) Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs ITO in I.T.A. No. 17/Del/1999 dated 28.01.2011 (Del.H.C.) ii) CIT Vs Atul Jain 212 CTR 42 iii) Amarlal Bajaj Vs CIT I.T.A.No. 611/Mum/2004 iv) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P.Chaliha Ors 79 ITR 603 (S.C.) v) United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) vi) CITVs Smt. Paramjit Kaur 311 ITR 38 (P H) vii) CIT Vs Shree Rajasthan Syntax Ltd. 313 ITR 231. 6. Ld. A.R. also invited our attentions to the Tribunal order in I.T.A. No. 4122 and C.O. No.388 which was pronounced vide Tribunal order dated 22 OCT 2014 and submitted that satisfaction recorded in the present case u/s 151 was similar as in the above quoted case and the tribunal in the C.O. filed by assessee had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and invited our attention to para 10 of the said order. 7. Ld. D.R. replying to the argument of C.O. submitted that the A.O. had reopened the assessment on the basis of specific information from Investigation Wing and necessary approval was taken from the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. by which entry taken and date Entry giving bank Account No. from which entry was given Mahesh Garg - 800480 30.11.2000 SBP-DG 4507 Performance trading Inv. - 700420 13.11.2000 SBP-DG 4281 Chintpurni Credits - 900540 22.11.2000 SBP-DG 50058 Subhash Chander Singhal - 500300 23.11.2000 SBP-DG 4544 Kuldeep Textiles P. Ltd. - 500500 21546 24.3.2001 Innovative Wazipur 239 Sweta Stone P. Ltd. - 500500 23510 24.3.2001 -do- 1200259- C.A. Division Trading P. Ltd. - 500500 33612 24.3.2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148[by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner), unless the [Joint) Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice) : Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of [Joint) Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the [Joint) Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.) [Explanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In order to ensure that the money reached by cheques to the beneficiary Shri Nitiri 1. Rugani kept blank cheques of the third parties. The assessee Shri Amar G. Bajaj had taken benefit of such entries of loans, commission ad bill discounting of ₹ 8,00,000/-, 11,21,243/- and 9,64,739/- respectively. The assessment was completed u/ s. 143(3) of the 1. T. Act on 3Ft March, 1998 by DCIT-Spl. Rg. 40, Mumbai. It is seen from records that the aforesaid points have not been verified in the assessment. I have therefore reason to believe that by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, income has escaped assessment within the meaning of proviso to Sec. 147 and explanation 2 (c)(i) of the income-tax Act, 1961. 7. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, in our considerate view, Section 147 and 148 are charter to the Revenue to reopen earlier assessments and are, therefore protected by safeguards against unnecessary harassment of the assessee. They are sword for the Revenue and shield for the assessee. Section 151 guards that the sword of Sec. 147 may not be used unless a superior officer is sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe that in the present case there has been no application of mind by the Additional Commissioner before granting the approval . 9. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are very much relevant in the instant case as in the present case also the Commissioner has simply mentioned approved to the report submitted by the concerned AO. In the light of the ratios/observations of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the reopening proceedings vis- a-vis provisions of Sec. 151 are bad in law and the assessment has to be declared as void ab initio. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal is allowed. 10. As we have held that the reassessment is bad in law, we do not find it necessary to decide other issues which are on merits of the case. 10.3. No contrary judgement or order is brought to our notice. This being a Co-ordinate Bench order, we are required to follow the same. 10.4. The decision cited by the Ld.D.R. does not pertain to the issue of contravention of provisions of S.151 of the Act. These judgements are on other aspects relating to reopening. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
