9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and such reopening was on borrowed satisfaction. It has been held in various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal that reopening of assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer makes such reassessment a nullity. Since, the Assessing Officer in the instant case, has reopened the assessment on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation Wing that it has invested in the shares of G.J. Holdings Ltd., whereas, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has finally concluded that the assessee has received an amount of ₹ 5,40,000/- from G.J. Holding Ltd. in shape of share capital and share premium, therefore, it clearly shows that there is complete non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1954/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2021 - R.K. Panda, Member (A) And Suchitra Kamble, Member (J) For the Appellant : Kapil Goel, Advocate For the Respondents : Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ysya Bank Ltd. M/sDisha Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 1304. Padma Tower-1. Kaiindera Place. New Delhi AAACDI253B 030711011004576 AndhraBank. KarolBagh. Delhi 1522002100030646 PNB. New Rajindera Place. New Delhi Ms Madad Lea son Pvt. Ltd. 1304. Padma Tower-1. Rajindera Place. New Delhi AAAACM188 4 15220021000.30707 PNB. New Rajindera Place. New Delhi M/s Shraman Estates Pvt. Ltd. 1304. Padma Tower-1. Rajindera Place. New Delhi AAACS3144 A 603900301000336 Vijaya Bank. Naraina. Delhi 582011023751 ING Vysya Bank Satish Monga and Associates. 1304. Padma Tower-1. Rajindera Place. New Delhi AAFPM3087D 601020110000210 Bank of India. Vikaspuri, New Delhi Nanak Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 1304, Padma Tower-1. Rajindera Place. New Delhi AAACN2520K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, it is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee objected to such reopening, which was disposed of by Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, proceeded to complete the assessment. He noted that the assessee has received share capital of ₹ 5,40,000/- from certain paper/briefcase company without any business activity and that their accounts are being used to rotate the funds for accommodation entries of different types to various beneficiaries. He, therefore, asked the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. Since, the assessee failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company and genuineness of the transaction to his satisfaction the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made addition of ₹ 5,40,000/-. Similarly, he noted that assessee must have incurred certain expenditure for obtaining the accommodation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) without appreciating that rubber stamp reasons in present case are based on borrowed satisfaction and are without independent application of mind and even no requisite and appropriate enquiry is made into valid return filed by assessee before formulating purported belief (like issue of enquiry notice to assessee) which so called belief suffers from lack of live nexus and is based on mere pretence only; 1.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) without appreciating that approval of higher authority (although not confronted to assessee) is also without requisite application of mind and is given in mechanical manner as evident from above discussion; 1.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) as none of the assessee submission is appreciated while adjudicating the appeal; 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to issue a fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, in the present circumstances, when the assessee instead of investing any money in G.J. Holdings Ltd. has received an amount of from G.J. Holding Ltd., the Assessing Officer could have issued fresh notice and he could not have proceeded on the basis of non-existent or wrong/erroneous facts for reopening of the assessment. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He submitted that the Assessing Officer on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation Wing has reopened the assessment. Since, the Investigation Wing is a part of the Department and credible information was obtained, therefore, the assessee cannot say that the reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law. He, accordingly, submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue should be dismissed. Further, the assessee could not substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company and the genuineness of the transaction either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Therefore, under these circumstances, the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
