TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi [ Ld. CIT(A , for short], dated 14/01/2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That under the facts and circumstances, proceedings u/s. 147/148 are without jurisdiction, without application of mind, unwarranted and mechanical and unsustainable. 2 That the Ld. A.O., since failed in adjudicating all objections against reopening proceedings, properly, as per law and in totality and as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N Drive Shafts, hence consequential proceedings and impugned asstt. is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the approval u/s. 151 is fatally defective, mechanical and without application of mind which makes the whole proceedings without jurisdiction, illegal and unwarranted. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roup is involved in providing accommodation entries to the persons which were named in the report. It was informed that assessee company also one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed reasons to believe based on record available with him and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) was issued to the assessee on 29/03/2017 and duly served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed its return of income on 30/03/2017, on request copy of reasons recorded vide letter dated 13/06/2017 was provided to the assessee. The assessee filed various objections vide letter dated 16/08/2017 and the Assessing Officer rejected the objections vide letter dated 10/10/2017. Based on the information found during the search in the case of entry operator and the documents seized during the search in particular page 39 40 Back Page of Annexure A-13. The Assessing Officer analyzed the various modus operandi related to the entry operator in his order and Assessing Officer linked the information found during the search and the information collected from the assessee. Accordingly, made additions u/s 68 to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... important that the AO should have initially ascertained the facts by making further investigations and should have drawn conclusions as at this stage of proceedings it is not relevant. The important question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a belief is necessity which definitely there was in this case. Whether or not the material would conclusively establish the escapement is not important. This aspect has to be examined subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. It is noted that the AO has applied his mind to the information independently to arrive at the belief on the basis of material which was available with him. 4.5 In view of the above facts and discussion, it is held that the A.O. has validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act by recording the reasons to believe in accordance with the provisions of the Act u/s 147 of the Act and, therefore, the same is hereby held to be valid. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us and filed the present appeal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR pressed only ground No.3 before us raising the issue that Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to our notice in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, similar issue was decided by the SMC Bench in favour of the assessee as under: 9. I find the above ground has been extracted by the CIT(A) in the body of the order. She has also mentioned at para 3.2 of the order that the assessee contended that there was no proper compliance of the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. However, her finding on this issue is missing in the entire order. A perusal of the approval given u/s 151, copy of which is placed at pages 20 and 21 of the paper book shows that the Pr. CIT while giving approval has simply mentioned as under: Yes, I am satisfied. 10. I find, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding an identical issue has held that the power vested in the commissioner u/s 151 to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment is coupled with a duty. The commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. That power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
