9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and then passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is apparent from the above. Therefore, re-assessment proceeding is flawed and cannot be stayed. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius [ 2024 (8) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Thus, we quash the notices issued re-assessment proceedings as well as the consequent order passed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Sanjay Garg, JM And Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM For the Assessee : Shri S.M. Surana And Shri Suni l Surana, ARs For the Revenue : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, DR ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM: These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A) ] even dated 29.06.2024 for the AYs 2018-19 2021- 22. ITA NO. 1642/KOL/2024 02. In ground no. 1 to 4, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the assessee was not having any transactions with any party as mentioned in show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and that the order passed u/s 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 is not acceptable. Therefore, these grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 04. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reassessment proceedings were invalidly initiated and therefore, the assessment order framed is in valid and nullity in the eyes of law. The ld. AR while referring to the notice issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act dated 17.03.2022, wherein at page no. 4 of the notice the ld. AO has stated that M/s Saviri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. has taken accommodation entry and brought back their unaccounted income into their regular books of accounts in the guise of bogus share/ share premium, unsecured loans etc. amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/- as escaped assessment during F.Y.2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 201-19 in the hands of Savitri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the ld. AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee and asked, as to why the notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of the above narrated evidence-based information which suggests income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, the ld. AR referred to the order passed by the ld. AO u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw materials consumption, transportation details of the goods purchase etc. and accordingly, there is no discrepancy found in the books of account maintained by the assessee which were satisfactorily audited also. Besides, the ld. CIT (A) noticed that the stock details were mentioned in the tax audit report and finally net profit of 2% on the total purchases were applied for estimating the income of the assessee. Now, the issue present before us, whether the re-assessment proceedings are itself valid or not, especially in view of the fact that in the original notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 17.03.2022, the ld. AO alleged as under:- 6. The details of such beneficiary which was identified from the analysis of HDFC a/c no. 00082340013465 of M/s Betastar Consultancy Services LLP and a/c по. 00082340021615 of M/s Ratnanidhi Advisory Services LLP was as under: Sl No. Beneficiaries Name Amount F.Y. PAN Jurisdiction 1. Savitri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 50,00,000 2017-18 AAICS3905R Central Circle-4(2) Kolkata 7. In view of above evidences on records, it is seen that M/s Savitri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. has taken accommodation entry and brought back their unaccounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e very initiation of proceedings u/s 148B of the Act are itself flawed and full of infirmities and the issue for which the notice was issued were not carried into the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 31st.03.2022 as is apparent from the above. We note that in Para 6 of the order issued u/s 148A(d) of the Act, he ld. AO noted that the assessee has taken accommodation entry for bogus billing amounting to ₹ 1,69,43,316/- and accordingly, the income has escaped assessment. In our opinion, the casualness in issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and then passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is apparent from the above. Therefore, re-assessment proceeding is flawed and cannot be stayed. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius Vs. ACIT in WP(c) 10485/2023, CM Appeal, 40640/2023 (Direction) C Appl 40642/2023 , wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly, Hon'ble Karnataka High at Bengaluru Bench in case of Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Vs. ITO in W.P. No. 8797/2022 has held has under:- (iii) A perusal of the impugned orders issued under Section 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment , there is no discussion on any of the materials, which were placed by the assessee along with the reply dated 9th April, 2022. Thus, it can be safely held that the order dated 13th April, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. A bit earlier, similar view has been taken by the Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in SHRENIK SUDHIRVIMAWALA vs. ACIT, 2022 (5) TMI 528 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT. (v) It is true that the Statements of Objections have been filed in these petitions and they are supported by affidavits. Several contentions have been taken up by the respondents supportive of the impugned notices orders. However, that would not come to their rescue. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the validity of the orders made by the statutory authorities has to be adjudged on the basis of the reasons contained in the womb of these orders; such reasons cannot be supplemented by way of affidavit or otherwise. What the Apex Court said in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. GORDHANDAS BHANJI AIR 1952 SC 16, wherein it was observed as under: We are clear that public orders, publicly made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
