9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they are, and the reasons recorded in the present case, read as they are, are factually incorrect reasons which could not have led the AO to arrive at a valid satisfaction that income for the year under consideration had escaped assessment. Accordingly, the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings through the incorrect reasons recorded and the entire re-assessment proceedings, culminating in the order under appeal are quashed as void ab initio. - SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate For the Revenue : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Both these appeals have been filed by different assessees for assessment year 2011-12, against the separate orders dated 01.05. 2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [ in short the ld. CIT(A) ]. 2. As both the appeals involve identical facts and issues, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order, for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA 407/CHD/ 2023 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any opportunity to the assessee appellant especially when no such addition has been made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the entire re-assessment proceedings, culminating in the impugned order, require to be quashed, since in the reasons recorded for re-opening the completed assessment, it has been wrongly stated by the Assessing Officer that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 30.09.2010 by declaring income of Rs.1,62,28, 910/-, whereas, the fact is that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 28.09.2011, at NIL income. Reliance in this regard has sought to be placed on the following case laws : i) Order of Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Monika Rani W/o Shri Ashok Kumar In ITA No.l582/Chd/2019. ii) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sagar Enterprises vs ACIT as reported in 257 ITR 335 iii) Order of ITAT, Chandigarh SMC Bench in the case of Baba Karta Singh Dukki Educational Trust Vs ITO iv) Order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs. ITO 1014/JP/2018 dated 10.10.2019 v) Gaurav Joshi Vs Income Tax Officer [2019] 55 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been stated that the office of the DR had asked the concerned AO, i.e., the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana, to give her comment on the position that in the first paragraph of the original assessment order dated 03.02.2014, it has been mentioned that Return declaring NIL was e-filed by the assessee on 28.09.2011 , whereas in the first paragraph of the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/ s 148 of the Act, the AO had mentioned that The assessee had f iled return of income through e-filing on 30.09.2010 for assessment year 2011- 12 declaring income of Rs.1,62,28,910/- ; that from the perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO, it was noticed that the AO had inadvertently mentioned the date of filing of the Income Tax Return as 30. 09 .2010, instead of 28.09. 2011 and had also mentioned income of Rs.1, 62,28,910/-, instead of NIL ; and that these are typographical mistakes committed by the AO while recording the reasons. For ready reference, the said letter is reproduced as under : To The Hon'ble Members, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh. . Sirs, Sub: Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Bench 'A', Chandigarh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Smt. Monika Rani Vs the ITO, Ward- 2, Kurukshetra , vide order (copy at the assessee's case laws Paper Book, pages 308 to 318) dated 28.02.2020, passed for assessment year 2010-11, in ITA No.582/CHD/2019, it was observed that from the reasons recorded, it was clear that the AO had issued the notice u/ s 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had not filed her return of income and that the assessee had purchased a property for Rs. 1,49,02,500/- during Financial Year 2009-10; that further, the said reasons given by the AO for re-opening the assessment were not correct, since the assessee had filed the return of income on 30.03. 2011, the copy of which had been placed in the assessee's compilation; that the assessee had also shown investment in agricultural land amounting to Rs.52,20,000/- in her balance sheet as on 31.03.2010, copy of which had been placed in the assessee's compilation; that both the reasons given by the AO were, thus, wrong; that the AO had, thus, reopened the assessment on the basis of wrong facts and, therefore, the re-opening was not valid and it was being quashed. 8.2 The Tribunal followed the decisions cited as under : i) Sagar Enterprise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment are based on two counts. One, the assessee has made bogus purchases and the second, that the purchases are not verifiable as the assessee has not filed the return of income. Thus the formation of belief is based on these two factual aspects that the assessee has made bogus purchases which are not verifiable as assessee has not filed the return of income. The reason for non verifiableness of the purchases made by the assessee due to non filing of the return of income as stated by the AO is absolutely incorrect and wrong and contrary to the record when the assessee has filed the return of income electronically on 29.10.2007. This fact was also subsequently accepted by the AO that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1). The second aspect of the reasons that the assessee has made bogus purchases is also not based on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply reproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said information is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the parties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons recorded by the AO manifest that there is no appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act with regard to reopening of the case. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act whereas as per facts and other material placed on record, notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is an illegal and invalid notice issued without any proper and valid reasons. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by holding that the sales of Rs. 26,62,821/- are deemed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that these sales are already declared as income in the return filed. Therefore, provisions of section 68 are not applicable. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by holding that modus of making bogus sales of Rs. 26,62,821/- is only to increase the turnover with the motive to avail better l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
