Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 660 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - no notice under section 143(2) issued before completing the assessment proceedings by AO - reason to believe - Held that:- The failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment. See Principal CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 1765 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Also at the time of recording the reasons, the Assessing Officer should have prima-facie belief but that belief must be arisen out of the material. Until and unless the ingredients stipulated under section 147 of the Act are not complied with, the reasons recorded cannot be regarded to be bona-fide. We accordingly on this basis also, following the decision in the case of Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT) quash the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- CIT(A) has categorically held that the assessee has discharged his onus to prove all the ingredients as stipulated under section 68 of the Act inasmuch as he has clearly stated that the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry to examine the contents of the information submitted by the assessee. The assessee has received subscription for share capital from four corporate entities through cheque and these corporate entities are duly registered with ROC and they are active as per the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. They are also having permanent account number and regularly filing their returns. The Assessing Officer without discharging his onus or bringing any material to the contrary, just rejected the evidences filed by the assessee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orisssa Corporation(1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) has categorically held that for inaction of the Assessing Officer, the assessee cannot be penalized. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|