9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of Assessing Officer inasmuch as the issue of notice under section 148 is bad in law and needs to be quashed and consequently, the impugned order of reassessment. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,35,34,532/- as undisclosed income, being difference in the balances between the books of the appellant and NH Securities Limited. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the case of the parties had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.11.13. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above. Ground No. 1. 5. This ground relates to challenging the order of reopening in the case of assessee. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. Before we decide the merits, it is necessary to evaluate the reasons recorded by AO. While initiating proceedings for reopening the assessment. The same are reproduced herein below: - Reasons recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961 and we have also heard the counsels for parties at length. 8. During the arguments, we noticed that although many grounds were raised by ld. AR thereby challenging the validity of the order of reopening. However, after perusal of reasons recorded by ACIT. We find that ACIT was of the view that assessee has taken a loan of Rs. Rs. 1,35,34,532/- from M/s N.H. Securities Ltd., for A.Y 2004-05 but has not shown this loan in his statement of affairs as on 31st, March, 2004. Therefore, the ACIT was of the view that the difference of Rs. 1,35,34,532/- is required to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee Hence on this belief, the AO has reopened the assessment. 9. Ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention to the pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properly while reaching to the conclusion that there was any 'escapement of income' on behalf of assessee. Since in the present case no amount was taken as loan by the assessee from M/s N.H. Securities. Therefore, in such circumstances, the very basis for reopening is not based on correct appreciation of facts. Hence, the orders of ACIT for reopening the assessment of the assessee on the basis of reasons recorded by him u/s 148(2) of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In such circumstances, we allow this ground of appeal and set aside the order of CIT(A) sustaining the order of reopening. Ground No.2 12 Since, we have quashed/set aside the orders regarding reopening of assessment. Therefore, there is no need for us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
