TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the assessee against the order dated 01.11.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by upholding the assumption of jurisdiction exercised u/s 147 by Ld.AO based on reasons recorded dt. 10.03.08 by suo-moto observation that there was no general information for roving enquiry contained in the reasons. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by upholding the Ld. AO's order just in mechanical way that the preliminary objection disposal vide order dt14.11.11 and thereafter dt. 5.12.11 in pursuance of objections dt. 26.08.11, 31.10.11, 23.11.11 are in full agreement with the Hon'ble Apex court order in GKN Driveshaft as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 29.01.2003. Thereafter, the AO received the information from the Investigation Wing and reopened the assessment by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had received two gift cheques of ₹ 2,00,000/- each from Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jindal who was alleged to have been engaged in giving bogus gifts, loans and share capital after taking cash and issuing cheques to the beneficiaries. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that in the bank statement of account no. 16767 maintained by the assessee with Oriental Bank of Commerce, it was found that the cheques amounting to ₹ 28,50,000/- (including cheques of ₹ 4,00,000/- received from Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jindal) wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening u/s 147 of the Act was just based on general information for roving enquiry and nothing more and if the AO had made any inquiry at the initial stage then he could have apprised that the gift was not taken from Sh. Mukesh Kumar but from Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jindal and other from Sh. Shiv Kumar Mittal and that all the documentary evidences were on record. A reference was made to page nos. 21 to 41 of the assessee s paper book. It was stated that the reopening was done by the AO only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the department but he had not applied his own mind. Therefore, the reopening was not valid. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and the AO did not apply his independent mind to come to the conclusion that the income of the assessee escaped assessment. 13. On a similar issue the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 Vs G G Pharma Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 08.10.2015 (now reported at 384 ITR 147) held as under: The basic requirement of law for reopening an assessment is application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to reopening the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
