9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 31st March, 2017 was having an attachment that of the very same notice dated 29/03/2017 which can be corroborated from the screen shot of the e-mail produced by the assessee along with the synopsis the downloaded attachment of the notice. Department has not produced any such notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2010 which was claimed to have been issued to the assessee. Thus, it can be safely concluded tha t as on the date of issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2017, A.O. was not having any information, material or evidence in his possession as to form the reason to believe that any income of the assessee for the subject Assessment Year had escaped assessment as the information itself has been received by the A.O. on 30/03/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly on 30.3.2017, as acknowledged by the Ld. AO in his reasons for reopening the assessment, recorded u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the unlawful and factually misconceived reassessment order u/s 147 being passed by the learned assessing officer for the AY 2010- 11, and not appreciating the fact the Ld. AO has passed the impugned reassessment order u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, for the AY 2010-11, without forming an independent reason to belief that income had escaped assessment and without any independent application of mind. (iii) That the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the unlaw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being furnished and placed on record before the Ld. AO, and not appreciating the fact that all the relevant and applicable supporting documentary evidences in respect of the said addition had already been produced and placed on record by the appellant, during the re-assessment as well as appellate proceedings. vi) That the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the unlawful and factually misconceived addition of Rs. 22,38,000/- being made by the Assessing Officer, as undisclosed income u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act, in the reassessment order u/s 147 being passed by the learned assessing officer for the AY 2010-11, on account of assuming the refund received by the appellant from M/s Vekunth Dham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further made addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- u/s 56 of the Act as income from other sources not disclosed to the Department. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/12/2017, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11/09/2023, sustained the additions of Rs. 8,15,000/- made by the A.O. as undisclosed income u/s 56 of the Act on the ground that the sale proceeds of equity shares are unexplained. Further, upheld the addition of Rs. 22,38,000/- made u/s 56 of the Act and also confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- made as undisclosed income u/s 56 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 11/09/2023, the assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (SC). iii) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax v.G&G Pharma (2015) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs Insecticides India Ltd 357 ITR 330, Delhi High Court. vii) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285, Delhi High Court; (viii)Sarthak Securities Co. (P).Ltd vs ITO, 329 ITR 110, (Delhi HC); (ix) PCIT vs RMG Poly Vinyl (1) Ltd Delhi High Court; (x) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 421 (Del). 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the notice dated 31st March, 2010 has been issued u/s 148 of the Act by rectifying the mistakes in issuing the notice dated 29/03/2010 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to form a Reason to Believe that any income of the assessee for the year under consideration had escaped assessment. It is the case of the Department that there was mistake in mentioning the date as '29/03/2017' in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, by rectifying the said error another notice was issued again on 31st March, 2017 replacing the notice that suffered from defect. The said contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative cannot be accepted as even the e-mail sent on 31st March, 2017 was having an attachment that of the very same notice dated '29/03/2017' which can be corroborated from the screen shot of the e-mail produced by the assessee along with the synopsis & the downloaded attachment of the notice. Furtherm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
