9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and therefore, the same is hereby quashed - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7312/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed Mir, CA For The Department : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi on 09.10.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2003-04 on the following grounds:- 1. The AO has erred in law and facts by passing the order u/s. 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The order therefore deserves to be quashed. 2. The AO has erred in law and facts by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as reasons recorded and satisfaction accorded is not within the meaning of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order therefore is liable to be quashed. 3. The AO has erred in law and facts by making addition of ₹ 93,45,714/- made by the AO by erroneously invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575; State of West Bengal vs. the Administrator, Howrah Muni Capacity, AIR 1972 SC 749 and the ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in the case of Phoenix Mills Ltd. decided in ITA No. 6240/M/2007 in which delay of 1357 days has been condoned. In view of the above, he requested to condone the delay of 283 days. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR stated that in this case Ld. CIT(A) passed his order on 9.10.2017 and communicated to the assessee on 30.10.2017. The assessee filed appeal on 8.10.2018 after a delay of 283 days. The explanation submitted by the assessee in this regard is not satisfactory in view of following submissions:- i) Order of CIT(A) was received on 30.10.2007 and hence the time limit for filing appeal to the ITAT, as per section 253(3) was till 31.12.2017. The assessee did not file appeal during this period and there is no explanation for this delay. ii) The assessee has furnished a medical certificate for explaining this delay. This certificate shows that the assessee was operated on 18.1.2018 i.e. well after the time for filing appeal had expire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, he requested to quash the reassessment. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed the copy of the decision dated 11.1.2017 of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-06 vs. M/s NC Cables Ltd. by which the issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal are squarely covered. 8. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that record were sent for approval to the Addl. CIT on 16.3.2010 and approval was given on 19.3.2010, which was shows that the Range head had ample time to look into the records and he has applied his mind for satisfaction before giving approval. Hence, the reasons recorded and satisfaction accorded is within the meaning of section 151 of the Act and need not to be quashed. 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the case laws and the relevant documents available on record especially the assessment order, impugned order, reasons recorded and the as well as the Paper Book filed by the Assessee containing pages 1 to 55 in which he has attached the copy of written submissions; copy of reasons and satisfaction recorded; judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDEC K J MARG 70CXX)0 27-Jan-03 yC'HIN 1PURNI CREDITS SBP DG 50058 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDFC K G MARG 700000 2 7-Jan-03 CHIN I PURNI CREDITS SBP DG 50058 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDFC K G MARG 70IXXX) 27-Jan-03 ' PARTICULAR MANAGE TIN I .EASE P. I. ID. SBP DG 50050 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D HDI-C K G MARG 7(XXXX) 27-Jan-03 PARTICULAR MANAGE 1-INI.EASE P. LTD. SBP DG 50050 MARKS CO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3381 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS LTD HDFC BANK EAST PATEL NAGAR 2/10 3(XXXX) 5I647 5-Ocr-02 ACOOT INDIA i PVT. LTD JAITAXM1 COOP BANK Fatehpuri 3365 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS I. ID DD SBI NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 \ SHAKUN TLA , DEVI JAII.AXM1 COOP BANK I Fatehpuri) 5807 MARES CONSOLIDA.1 ID BUSNIESS L ID DDSBI NEW DELHI -KXI680 164384 3-Oct-O 2 vSHAKUNTI .A DT;VI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDA LED BUSNIESS LTD DDSBI NEW-DELHI 40068X) 164384 3-0 ci -02 SHAKUN T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter paying unaccounted cash to the accommodation entry giver, who is a known entry operator as per the report of the Investigation Wing. In view of these facts, the alleged transaction is not the bonafide one. Therefore, I have reason to believe that an Income of ₹ 1,53,11,000/- has escaped assessment in the assessment year 2003-04 due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment so far as this amount is concerned. Therefore, this case is fit for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case the assessment was made U/s 143(1), not U/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. I am therefore, satisfied that the said income, on account of accommodation entry worth ₹ 1,53,11,000/- received by the assessee has escaped assessment and accordingly after recording the above said reasons as laid down under the provisions of Section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 notice u/s 148 is being issued. Sd/- ( H.C. BANTWAL) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI Approved. Sd/- 19/3 Addl. CIT Range-6 22.3.2010 Notice u/s. 148 issued by Speed Post No. ED 966 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng principles are laid down:- The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commisisoner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material 8. If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration. ( C.) Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) in the Head Notes has held that Section 151, read with section 148 of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
