9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad on the following grounds:- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, action of AO in reopening of the case which is made in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act is bad in law and consequently all subsequent proceedings including orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are also bad in law. 1.1 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, as evident from assessment order contents as nowhere Ld AO communicated reasons to believe with approval if any in prescribed format to assessee prior to assessment being completed which non supply makes all subsequent proceedings including orders passed by ld AO and ld CIT-A are also bad in law 1.2 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening based on property sale information as known from assessment order cannot give rise to valid reasons to believe for income escaping assessment so entire foundation is invalid and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion towards Column No. 12 mentioend in the copy of reasons recorded by the AO and approval granted by the JCIT, wherein, the AO has erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Act on the basis of invalid and mechanical approval as evident from cursory look to reasons format as mere endorsement in column no. 12 was made as Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of Notice u/s. 148 , which shows that Ld. JCIT has not recorded proper satisfaction after due application of mind and gave the approval in a mechanical manner. He further stated that this legal ground is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi dated 26.9.2019 in the case of Krishna Print Pack, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Meerut decided in ITA No. 5135/Del/2018 relevant to assessment year 2009- 10 and therefore, he requested that the same ratio may be followed in the present case and appeal of the assessee may be allowed accordingly by quashing the reassessment proceedings. 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the following case laws and requested that the same may kindly be considered with regard to reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that assessee had received certain amount from shell companies working as an accommodation entry provider, reassessment could not be held unjustified. 8. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs PCIT Gujarat High Court T20171 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) Where reassessment was made on basis of information received from Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of share application provided by a third party, same was justified. 9. Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2016-TIQL-370-HC- AHM-IT It is not open to the assessee to object to the reopening by asking the AO to produce the source from where the AO has gathered the information for forming a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 10. Ankit Aqrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs JCIT Rajasthan High Court [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) Where DIT informed that assessee-company had received share application money from several entities which were only engaged in business of providing bogus accommodation entries to beneficiary concerns, reassessment on basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Meerut decided in ITA No. 5135/Del/2018 relevant to assessment year 2009-10 wherein, the similar and identical legal issue has been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the findings of the Tribunal are reproduced as under:- 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:- Information is received as disseminated in the cases of M/s Uflex Ltd and M/s Montage Enterprises for F.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12, wherein the above mentioned assessee is reportedly engaged in financial cash purchases amounting to above ₹ 11,37,031/- and the transaction is not verifiable and hence, income above ₹ 1,00,000/- has escaped assessment. The assessee has not furnished disclosed these cash purchases in return of income. 2. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the income of more than ₹ 1 lacs chargeable to tax for the A.Y.2009-10 has escaped assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer-Revenue's appeal dismissed. 12. Respectfully following the above decision, I hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are not as per law and has to be quashed. 13. Even otherwise, also I find the reopening was made on the ground that the transaction of the assessee with M/s Uflex Ltd. and M/s Montage Enterprises are not verifiable and, hence, income above ₹ 1 lakh has escaped assessment. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no such addition has been made, but, the addition has been made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act on account of cash payments and no addition on the very basis on which the assessment was reopened has been made. It has been held in various decisions that when the assessment is reopened on a particular issue and no such addition has been made on that very issue, then, the Assessing Officer cannot make other additions which might have come to his notice during the course of completion of such reassessment. He has to issue separate notice. Since, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
