9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd merely on the basis of information available on ITBA database, the same are mechanical and without application of mind. (iii) That the assessing officer having failed to even verify the information regarding cash deposit or prove existence of undisclosed income, the reopening is merely for the purpose making roving enquiry and same is illegal and without jurisdiction in absence of tangible material. (iv) That the notice uls 148 having been issued without proper approval ul s 151, the same is invalid and void ab initio 2(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in total disregard to the fact that assessment order was passed without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified on facts and are bad in law. 5. That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, forgot any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has drawn my attention towards page no. 18-19 of the Paper Book and stated that in the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the case of the assessee u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for assessment year in dispute was for the cash deposit in the savings bank account amounting to Rs. 25,78,850/-, but the AO while completing the assessment vide order dated 19.12.2018 u/s. 147 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment. Resultantly the addition made in the reassessment order would stand deleted and need not be adjudicated on merit. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following decision ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench order dated 07.6.2017 in the case of Tajendra Kumar Ghai vs. ITO 1(5), Rudrapur relevant for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- "9. I have considered rival submissions. It is not in dispute that assessee filed return of income prior to issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 16th March 2014. It is well settled law that validity of the reassessment proceedings is to be determined on the basis of the reasons recorded by the AO. The reasons are reproduced above i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 147 of the I.T. Act the AO shall have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore the belief of the AO should be based upon some specific and tangible material for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. The course adopted by the AO was wholly unjustified in recording the incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The decision cited by the Ld. Counsel for assessee would clearly support the contention of the assessee that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. In this view of the matter I am of the view that AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the I.T. Act for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. I accordingly set aside the orders of the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
