9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were lliable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 1726/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Department by : S h. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2001-02. 2. The following grounds have been raised :- 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an order of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act at an income of ₹ 5,85,260/- as against returned income of ₹ 5,450/-. 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the initiation proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, further completion of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions for initiation of the proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act for reopening the assessment of the assessee. The assessee requested for the reasons for reopening and the same were provided to them by the AO vide letter dated 9.7.2008, in this letter it was specifically informed that objections if any for reopening may be communicated within 7 days, failing which it will be presumed that they have no objection for reassessment proceedings. The assessee did not responded to this letter. Later in response to notice under section 143(2) dated 31.3.2007 and later on 18.8.2008 then 29.8.2008 the assessee started appearing in the reassessment proceedings. Subsequently the AO passed an order under section 143 of the I.T. Act read with section 147 of the I.T. Act dated 26.12.2008 and held that an amount of ₹ 5,78,365/- is a bogus unexplained credit and made an addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act to the income of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 13.2.2012 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to the Assessing Officer. 6.1 Finally, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). To support his contention, he has filed a small Paper Book containing pages 1 to 38 having the copy of the orders of the ITAT, Delhi passed in the following cases:- i) Mrs. Kaushalya Gupta vs. ITO in ITA NO. 2235/Del/2013. ii) Laureate Educational Society vs. ITO in ITA No. 1945/Del/2012 iii) ITO vs. Smt. Arti Khattar in ITA No. 2395/Del/2012 iv) M/s RKG International Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 101/Del/2013. v) DCIT vs. International Credits Ltd. in ITA NO. 2027/Del/2012 vi) ACIT vs. Gulshan Polyols Ltd. in ITA No. 1644/Del/2012 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and requested that the same may be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, specially the impugned order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority alongwith documentary evidence filed by the assessee as well as the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. At the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer. [Reference is invited to the Section 151(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961]. 5. Submitted for kind perusal and necessary approval for issue of Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. A proforma for obtaining the approval is enclosed. Sd/- (C.M. MEENA) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(4), NEW DELHI 7.1 In response to the reasons recorded, the assessee filed a reply dated 29.8.2008 to the ITO, Ward-11(4), New Delhi in which the assessee has submitted that the notice u/s. 148 was unexpectedly issued by the Department on 31.3.2008 on the last date when the proceedings were getting time barred under the Income Tax Act, 1961, after a lapse of nearly 7 years from the date of filing the original return i.e. 19.6.2001. Assessee further objected for initiation of proceedings merely on the basis of the special information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.-I), New Delhi in which it was alleged that the assessee has received amount of ₹ 5,78,365/-. 7.2 We have perused the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the I.T. Act for issue of Notice u/s. 148(1) of the I.T. Act as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and recording of requisite satisfaction in respect of any such undisclosed income. After hearing both the parties on the issue in dispute as well as after going through the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith order dated 21.7.2011 passed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2011] 338 ITR 0051, wherein the Hon ble High Court has held matter as under:- Held, allowing the petition, that the reassessment proceeding were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to ₹ 5 lacs during the financial year 2002-03 as stated in the Annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assesee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
