9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we allow the assessee's grounds of Appeal and set aside the order of Lower Authorities, resultantly, additions stands deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 6914/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2022 - DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Suresh Gupta, CA For the Respondents : Shivani Singh, CIT-DR ORDER Per Yogesh Kumar U. S., Judicial Member The present appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order dated 07/09/2018, passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)-28, New Delhi. 2. The assessee has filed 'NIL' income on 29/10/2007. The return was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the case of the assessee has been taken up for scrutiny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for the AY under consideration. 2. The reassessment proceedings and the order of assessment u/s. 147/148 is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without disposing off the objection of the appellant and the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contrary claim of the AO without verifying the facts from the relevant records of the AO. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings are not validly initiated in view of the proviso to section 147 being applicable, the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation in the absence of the allegation by the AO in the reason recorded that there was failure on the part of the appellant to disclose truly and fully all material facts in original proceedings which had bearing on the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant craves leave to add, delete, modify/amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble Bench. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the impugned reassessment proceedings has been initiated on the basis of very same information available with the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment order dated 29/12/2011, wherein the addition of Rs. 3,53,50,00,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Act. Further submitted that, the said addition were also include the amounts received from two entities namely M/s. Oracle Cables P. Ltd. and M/s. Multi-Semi Conductors P. Ltd. out of three entities named in the reason. However, no addition was made for the third entity i.e. M/s. Indlon Hosiery P. Ltd. for Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said information were very well in existence in the hands of the Ld. A.O when the original assessment order was passed on 29/12/2011. Therefore, we find that the reopening of assessment was without any fresh tangible material. It is well settled law that, in the absence of fresh tangible material, the action u/s. 147 of the Act by the A.O is not tenable under the law. In the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain Vs. DY CIT 381 ITR 0428 (Del) the Jurisdictional High Court held as under:- 16. The reasons given by the Department in its counter affidavit do not in any way explain the patent illegality in invoking the powers under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment of the Assessee for AY 2007-08. The mere fact that the definition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
