Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1365 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - Independent application of mind v/s borrowed satisfaction - argument submitted that the reassessment proceedings in the instant case is based on borrowed satisfaction based on the conclusion drawn by Investigation Wing - HELD THAT:- When there is non-application of mind by the AO to the report of the Investigation Wing, such reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law and such reopening proceedings have been quashed. Since, in the instant case, the AO has not applied his mind as there is non-identification of the deponents, non-mentioning of middleman if any, absence of details in the form of instrument number through which the cheques/RTGS was accepted by the assessee company, name of the bank from which the accommodation entries were provided, the name of the bank in which the accommodation entries were credited and the date of transaction etc. therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is complete nonapplication of mind by the AO to the information received from the Investigation Wing. Therefore, in view of the decision of Meenkashi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (5) TMI 1428 - DELHI HIGH COURT the reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law. We further find in the case of Sh Rajiv Agarwal [2016 (3) TMI 972 - DELHI HIGH COURT][has held that even in cases where the AO comes across certain unverified information, it is necessary for him to take further steps, make inquiries and garner further material and if such material indicates that income of an Assessee has escaped assessment, form a belief that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. There is non-application of mind by the AO could not be said to have reason to believe as to justify reopening of assessment. We further find in the instant case, the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 stated that return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act be treated as return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for supply of the copy of reasons. We find the AO after more than four months directed the assessee to e-file the return of income which was done on 13.10.2018. We find the AO thereafter issued notice dated 16.10.2018 u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act and supplied reasons recorded on 22.10.2018 against which the assessee submitted objection to assumption to jurisdiction on 05.11.2018 and same were disposed of by AO on 09.11.2018. From the above facts, it is evident that the AO assumed jurisdiction to make assessment by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 16.10.2018 before supplying reason which means that the AO assumed jurisdiction before allowing assessee to file objection to assumption to jurisdiction. We are of the considered opinion that reassessment proceeding initiated by the AO in the instant case and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. Therefore, we quash the reassessment proceeding - Decided in favour of assessee.
|