TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. Thus non providing reasons for reassessment within a reasonable time the reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained in the case of the assessee and quashed - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2205/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2016 - Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member And Sh. O. P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Salil Kapoor Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR ORDER Per O. P. Kant, A. M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 16/02/2015 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-22, New Delhi for assessment year 2006-07 raising following grounds: 1. That the notice issued u/s 148 and the assessment order passed in pursuance to said notice are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that AO has not provided the Reasons to believe : a) that income has escaped assessment; and b) that income has escaped assessment by reasons of omission or failure on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record and additions are also excessive. 13. The explanations given, the evidence produced and material placed has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made. 14. That the assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter the ground of appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee company filed return of income on 30/06/2006 declaring income of ₹ 1,190/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 23/06/2007. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing, that the assessee obtained accommodation entry, after recording reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 dated 22/03/2013. In the scrutiny assessment completed, the Assessing Officer held the share application money of ₹ 20 lakh received from M/s. Karishma Industries Private Limited as unexplained and unaccounted money of the assessee and made ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 14/08/2015 in the case of Kothari Metals vs. ITO in Writ Appeal No. 218/2015, decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of Tata International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 23 taxmann.com 18 (Mum) and judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trend Electronics reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bombay). 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below and submitted that in the normal course of functioning of the Department, reasons must have been supplied by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is settled law that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to supply the reasons recorded in the reasonable time period as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) limited Vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has held as under: 2. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that in the present case the reasons recorded for reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening the assessment is invalid and cannot sustain. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 8.2 Thus reassessment completed without furnishing the reasons actually recorded by the A.O. for reopening of assessment is not sustainable in law because the A.O. is duty bound to supply the same within reasonable time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). The subsequent supply of the reasons would not make good of the illegality suffered by the reopening of assessment. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in case of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd vs JCIT and decided a similar issue in para 7 as under: 7 We have considered the submissions made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and material on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed return of expenditure tax in the normal course. The Assessing Officer issued notice purportedly u/s 11 but inadvertently on the notice, u/s 8 was mentioned in lieu of sec. 11. In this regard, we are in agreement with the findings of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) that this mistake was covered by the provisions of see. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment, is invalid and cannot sustain. Accordingly, we set aside the reassessments for all 3 years under consideration being invalid. 9. In similar facts, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trend Electronics(supra), the Hon ble High Court of Bombay is held that where jurisdictional issues involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. 10. When we advert to the facts of the case in hand, we find from the submission of the assessee that despite repeated letters requesting to provide copy of the reasons recorded or the grounds on which the assessment was reopened, no such reasons were provided to the assessee. We find that the Ld. DR could not substantiate whether any reasons were provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and merely relying on the fact that general practice was followed in Department of supplying reasons, it cannot be presumed that reasons were supplied in the case of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has filed evidences in support of its claim of request for provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
