TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 29.03.2014. A.O. has referred to the same letter of the Investigation Wing dated 12.03.2013 and same facts. A.O. after objection by assessee, dropped the second re-assessment proceedings A.O. on the basis of the same information of receiving accommodation entry as noted in the show cause notice u/s 263 had earlier reopened the assessment in first round of proceedings as well as in the second round of proceedings on the same set of facts and ultimately, dropped the second re-assessment proceedings vide Order dated 05.12.2016. Therefore, the first impugned order under section 147 dated 19.03.2015 stood merged with the second reassessment order dated 05.12.2016 dropping the proceedings under section 263 Thus, there were no justification for the Pr. CIT to initiate the proceedings u/s 263 against the first re-assessment order dated 19.03.2015. Pr. CIT did not assume the jurisdiction validly u/s 263 against the second re-assessment order dated 05.12.2016, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. Assessee at the first and second round of reassessment proceedings produced sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove that it has rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scanned and sent to CIT in soft copy. However, while completing the reassessment though the A.O. referred the appraisal report but did not look into the relevant seized material in soft copy. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the re-assessment order be not revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee objected to the same and submitted that there is no evidence against the assessee. The inference drawn that alleged cash of ₹ 55 lakhs was paid by the intermediary Shri A.K. Jain to Shri S.K. Jain was enumerated from the coffers of the assessee, is not evident from any of the documents. The A.O. conducted independent examination and cross-verified all the transactions and verified the genuineness of the transaction. The A.O. verified the identity of the Investor, its address, PAN, confirmation letter and bank statements and was satisfied with the creditworthiness of the Investor. The Commissioner cannot revised the order in such circumstances. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, held that the seized material have not been considered by the A.O. at the re-assessment proceedings. He has referred to the seized material in the impugned order and set- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 230845 Axis Bank 26.04.2008 M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 248523 Axis Bank 27.05.2008 I have very carefully considered the aforesaid piece of information and the modus operandi of the entry operator Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and its controlled entities. I find that the quantum of amount of such entries received by the assessee company M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited as per details mentioned above is ₹ 55,00,000/-. These accommodation entries taken by M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited are earlier identified and examined by the Investigation Wing to establish that all the entry providing entities were tools in Surender Kumar Jain business of providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash/cheques through which he had drawn a long trail of bank transactions to impart a color of genuineness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same reasoning A.O. again reopened the assessment under sections 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act. It may noted here that the Ld. CIT-D.R. produced the assessment record, according to which, the A.O. recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment on 23.03.2016 which is approved by Ld. Pr. CIT on 30.03.2016. However, the A.O. dropped the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act vide Order dated 05.12.2016. Copy of the reasons and Order have been placed on record by the Ld. CIT-D.R. Order of the A.O. dated 05.12.2016 dropping the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act for the second time are reproduced as under : 05.12.2016 : Mr. Munish Gupta, A.R. of the assessee attended. Since the case for A.Y. 2009- 10 has already been assessed in Ward-24(2), based on the same reasons for reopening, the current proceedings are void ab initio. Proceedings u/s. 148 are therefore dropped. Relevant approval from Pr. CIT is placed on record. 6.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that thereafter the Ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act dated 17.01.2017. The assessee objected to the same before the Ld. Pr. CIT. Learned Counsel for the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Delhi Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi in ITA.No.2269 2857/Del./2017 vide Order dated 10.12.2018 has quashed the Orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Copy of the Order is placed on record. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the impugned order and submitted that dropping of the proceedings does not amount to order. Therefore, it cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that A.O. has not considered the seized material found from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Ld. D.R. also filed written submissions in which he has reiterated the same submissions which were reiterated in the group cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi (supra). 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the group cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi (supra), the Tribunal has quashed the Orders passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act under similar circumstances. Copy of the Order is placed on record and the entire order is reproduced as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ashish Chaddha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 15, 16 25.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This Order shall dispose of all the appeals filed by different Assessees challenging the Orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since issue is common in all the appeals, therefore, all appeals were heard together and are decided through this common consolidated Order. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 3. The facts of the case are that original return of Income in this case was filed on 20.10.2007 at NIL income. The notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 25.03.2014 after recording the reasons and taking prior approval from the competent authorities. The assessee in response to the statutory notice vide letter dated 10.04.2014 submitting therein that the original return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipts in cash and cheque from/to different persons/firms/companies have been recorded, were seized. On perusal of the reassessment order, it is noticed that while passing the said order, the A.O. has failed to consider the relevant seized material pertaining to the assessee-company which is mentioned in the Order. It is noted in the notice under section 263 that the amounts received by assessee-company were accommodation entry in lieu of cash given by the assessee-company through Shri Manoj Bansal. The relevant copies of the seized material relating to the assessee-company were given along with show cause notice or during the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee-company submitted that the A.O. has considered the seized material not only at the time of re-assessment but also at the time of recording reasons for re-assessment. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the A.O. wherein there is a mention of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri S.K. Jain who had floated hundreds of bogus companies to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. 3.2. The assessee-company also submitted that during the course of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions appearing in the seized material. Therefore, all the relevant seized material found from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain group was forwarded to the Commissioner in soft copy after scanning. The assessee-company is also shown as beneficiary as evident from the scanned copy of the seized material. Against these entries, the name of assessee-company and the name of Shri Manoj Bansal (Mediator) is mentioned. All the cheques were found to be credited in the bank account of the assessee-company. Several scanned copies are attached from pages 9 to 19 of the impugned order. From pages 20 to 26 of the impugned order, summary of the appraisal report, year-wise details of accommodation entries provided by Shri S.K. Jain group to various beneficiary companies were tabulated for the charge of CIT-8. The A.O. has made mentioned details/table as the basis for reopening of the assessment which is clear from the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. From the entry No.230, the name of the assessee-company an amount of ₹ 22 lakhs have been mentioned. It would shows that A.O. did not verify or examine the seized material relating to the assessee. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is not necessary to record all the facts and findings in the reassessment order. Ld. Pr. CIT cannot sit over the Order of the re-assessment passed by the A.O. The A.O. has taken one of the possible views as per law. Therefore, the re-assessment order cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. There is a difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. PB-11 is reasons recorded under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act in which it is mentioned that information/documents in the form of CD, appraisal report along with relevant details has been received from the O/o. CIT-III, New Delhi, Dated 28.03.2013 that the assessee has received and is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain, Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain. The accommodation entries have been provided to various assessees who were re-routing their unaccounted cash through these accommodation entries. Therefore, all the relevant details were before A.O. at the time of reopening of the assessment. PB-17 to 24 are the information called by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in which it was held that if the ITO acting in accordance with Law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the Order should have been written more elaborately. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) in which it was held that the A.O. is both Investigator and Adjudicator. If the A.O. fails to conduct enquiry, he commits error and the word erroneous includes failure to make the enquiry. In cases, where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the Order/Inquiry made is erroneous. An Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. CIT (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del.). The Ld. D.R. relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi vide ITA.No.2158/Del./2017, Dated 25.10.2017 reported in 2017-TIOL-1775-ITAT-DEL in which the Tribunal noted that assessee-company has raised the issue of no notice has been issued under section 143(2) or served upon assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that assessee has neither challenged this issue after passing of the reassessment order nor has raised this issue before Pr. CIT during the course of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has raised several legal issues/objections before Pr. CIT challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Even before the Tribunal at the time of filing of the appeal, this issue has neither been raised in the grounds nor has any additional ground been raised so that Department could have got the opportunity to object or respond to such a plea after verifying the record in this regard. Therefore, request of Counsel for Assessee was rejected. It is also noted that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 22 lakhs. The A.O. accordingly formed an opinion that income of ₹ 22 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the assessment year under appeal. The assessee in response to the said notice filed reply dated 10.04.2014 submitting therein that original return filed may be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act and requested for copy of the reasons which were supplied and objections of the assessee have been disposed of separately. The A.O. in the re-assessment order did not mention if he has issued any notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act upon assessee before completion of the assessment. This issue was raised before Ld. Pr. CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act that A.O. has not issued notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act at re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. Pr. CIT mentioned in the impugned order that assessee was intimated by notices dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 that in the absence of requisite details assessment would be completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT treated the same notices as notice issued under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge the validity of the Order passed under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was non-est. Since the re-assessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, rightly contended that the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid reassessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, set aside the Order of Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In view of the above, the remaining plea of the assessee are not required to be adjudicated. However, we may briefly note that A.O. examined entire seized material at the time of recording reasons and reassessment stage. The assessee produced sufficient evidences at the re-assessment proceedings to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The A.O. also made direct enquiry by issuing summons under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to the Investors who have also replied directly to the A.O. Therefore, A.O. rightly accepted the credits as genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n entries has escaped assessment. The A.O. after considering the evidences and material on record made the addition of ₹ 20 lakhs in respect of four corporate entities under section 68 of the I.T. Act and made further addition of ₹ 40,000/- on account of commission expenses for taking accommodation entries. The re-assessment order under sections 144/148 Dated 18.03.2015 was passed accordingly. 10. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the aforesaid reassessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and noted that Investigation Wing has forwarded hard copy of appraisal report to show that assessee received accommodation entries. However, A.O. has taken it at ₹ 10 lakhs only as against ₹ 1 crore. Show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act was issued stating therein that assessee has received ₹ 50 lakhs each as accommodation entries from Hillridge Investments Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing Finance Private Limited. Explanation of assessee was called for because the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the A.O. has not examined the seized material and has faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that figure in the reasons is wrongly mentioned. He has filed written submissions and relied upon some Judgments as relied in case of Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (supra). Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT rightly considered re-assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is well settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is to be judged with reference to the reasons recorded under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act. In the present case, A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment on 25.03.2014, copy of which is filed at page-1 of paper book. Same reads as under : Reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. SPJ Hotels (PV Limited, PAN AAKCS7722C for the A.Y. 2007-08 - Reg. 25.03.2014 : Information about entry operators and their beneficiaries of Delhi has been received from the office of the DIT .(Inv.)-II, New Delhi vide letter F. No. DlT(Inv)- 148/2011-12/7539 dated 21,03.2012 and F. No. DIT (Inv)- II/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er records available, the assessee has not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08. In view of above, I have reason to believe that income of ₹ 10,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meanings of the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is required to be issued to the assessee company to assess the income escaped as stated hereinabove. As the period to reopen the case exceeds four years and as per records no scrutiny assessment has been done in this case for the A.Y. 2007-08, approval from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, New Delhi has been obtained vide letter dated 25.03.2014 to issue notice u/s.148, as per the provisions of Section 151(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore issue notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Sd/-Virender Kumar Rathee ITO, Ward 9(2), New Delhi. 13.1. In the aforesaid reasons for reopening of the assessment, it is mentioned that assessee company received share capital on account of accommodation entries of ₹ 5 lakhs each from M/s. Hillridge Investment Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing Finance Pvt. Ltd., based on information and seized materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. initiated the reassessment proceedings without application of mind, such proceedings would be invalid. A.O. in the present case has failed to verify the information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, it is non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. to record correct facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. In such circumstances, the re-assessment order could not be treated as valid and in accordance with law. Since reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Following the reasons for decision in the case of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (supra), we set aside the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. 14. In the result, ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA.No.2527/Del./2017 M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 15. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi, Dated 24.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2007-2008 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 16. The facts of the case are that notice under section 148, dated 28.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. The assessee filed all the documentary evidences before A.O. i.e., confirmation letters from both the Investors, copy of their bank accounts, copy of ITR, copy of PAN, copy of audited balance sheet, copy of Master Data taken from Official website of MCA and assessment order under section 153C/153A in the case of M/s. Hillridge Investments Ltd., The seized papers are only rough papers and no details have been mentioned therein. The Ld. Pr. CIT however, did not accept the contention of assessee and noted that seized documents recovered during the course of search in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group of cases have not been examined and considered by the A.O. while framing the re-assessment order. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that verification of the seized documents shows the amount in question is ₹ 2.20 crores but as per the details given in the notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the amount is mentioned as ₹ 2.90 crores. The contention of the assessee that the seized material did not belong to the assessee was rejected. The re-assessment order was set aside and restored to the A.O. for passing the order afresh as per law. 18. The assessee in the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of M/s. Hillridge Invesment Ltd. PB-46 is bank statement. PB-49 is ITR of M/s. Hillridge Invesment Ltd. PB-50 to 53 are Confirmation, Bank statement and ITR of M/s. Vogue Leasing Finance Pvt. Ltd. PB-307 is order sheet of the A.O. All documentary evidences were filed before A.O. in both the proceedings. PB-68 is copy of the reasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act in which the amount of ₹ 2.90 crores as accommodation entries have been mentioned instead of ₹ 2.20 crores. PB-60 is notice under section 148 Dated 28.03.2014. PB-57 is original assessment order under section 143(3) Dated 27.11.2009. He has, therefore, submitted that reassessment done after four years and in the reasons as well as in the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. has not mentioned anything if there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts at every stage for the purpose of assessment and re-assessment. The assessee declared share application money received from two parties. However, in the reasons name of none of parties have been mentioned. In the original assessment proceedings an amount of ₹ 2.20 crores have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial facts necessary for the assessment as required by the A.O, the precondition for invoking the proviso to Section 147 was not satisfied and therefore, A.O. acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing notice under section 148 beyond the four year period mentioned in Section 147. 20.3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that there is totally non-application of mind by the A.O. while framing the re-assessment order, therefore, reassessment is illegal and bad in law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 99-CCH-28-Del.-HC, Pr. CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd., (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del.). He has submitted that there is no approval for reopening of the assessment by the Competent Authority. He has submitted that all the seized papers were considered by the A.O, therefore, reopening of the assessment was bad in law, illegal and as such Ld. Pr. CIT should not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 21. On the other hand, Learned D.R. reiterated the submissions made in the case of M/s. Supersonic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to make return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. In the absence of any such details mentioned in the reasons or notice under section 148, the re-assessment order would be invalid and bad in law. Further A.O. recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment because the amount in question is ₹ 2.20 crores but A.O. has mentioned in the reasons the amount of ₹ 2.90 crores which escaped assessment. Further, no names of the parties have been mentioned in reasons under section 147 from whom the amount in question have been received by the assessee as accommodation entry. All the facts brought to the notice of the A.O. by the Investigation Wing have been considered by the A.O. while framing the re-assessment and accepted the return of income. Therefore, there was no new material available on record to justify reopening of the assessment or to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act, which would also show that there is totally non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. to reopen the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and accordingly accepted the return of income vide order under sections 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 30.06.2014. 26.1. The Ld. Pr. CIT found the re-assessment order to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because information was received that assessee received accommodation entry from Shri S.K. Jain group of concerns and all the seized documents have not been verified by the A.O. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee seeking explanation of credit entry of ₹ 1 crores received from Shalini Holdings Ltd. The assessee filed detailed reply which is reproduced in the impugned order in which the assessee submitted that complete details were filed before A.O. and receipt of share capital money supported by the documents and confirmations. Therefore, re-assessment order is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT noted the submissions of the assessee wherein the shares were originally issued to Shalini Holdings Ltd on 25.08.2008 were transferred on 25.03.2010 in favour of Frank Merchantile Private Limited. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be revised under Section 263 of the Act. 27.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that it is legal ground and goes to the root of the matter and without further investigation, same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. 28. Learned D.R. however, objected to the admission of the additional ground of appeal and submitted that no such ground was taken in the original proceedings and that such ground cannot be taken in the present appeal. 29. Similar issue was considered by us in the above group of appeal in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (supra) and additional ground have been admitted. Following the reasons for decision of the same, we admit the additional grounds of appeal for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. 30. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that no notice under section 143(2) have been issued in the case of assessee. Copy of the order sheet of the A.O. is filed at page 279 of the paper book to show that no notice under section 143(2) have been issued. He has referred to PB-20 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment in which A.O. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been issued for completion of the re-assessment proceedings and that incorrect facts have been recorded in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid, bad in law and non-est and as such, liable to be quashed. We, therefore, following the reasons for decision in the cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., M/s. SPJ Hotel Private Ltd., and M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (supra), set aside the impugned Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 33. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 34. To sum-up, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed. 9. In this case, after considering the submissions of both the parties and material on record, it was held that reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act because only valid re-assessment order can be revised. It was also found that in this case A.O. conducted the enquiries before passing the re-assessment order and on the basis of material on record, A.O. has correctly accepted the transaction to be genuine. It is not in dispute that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263 is bad in law on merits of the case ? 9.1. The Learned Third Member decided the first and second questions against the assessee and consequently held that the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act would be a valid Order. The Learned Third Member on merit, however, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The findings of the learned Third Member in para-22 of the Order is reproduced as under : 22. In the present case also, the Assessing Officer made inquiry and the assessee replied to each and every query of the Assessing Officer both in the original proceedings as well as in the re-assessment proceedings and arrived at a conclusion for re-opening proceedings and dropping the proceedings after the due consideration of reply and facts submitted by the assessee. Here also the CIT has not given any finding that the cash credits were not genuine and that interest paid by them was not allowable as deduction. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, CIT(A) was not justified in invoking provisions of section 263 for revising the order of dropping of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, of the Assessing Officer, which as aforesaid, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
