9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, made by A.O is bad and liable to be quashed as the reasons on the basis of which the reassessment is initiated has no live link between the material and the belief formed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the A. O. despite the fact that the same is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the assessee had already disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the A.O. despite the same having been made on the basis of reasons recorded without there being any Independent application of mind. (ii) That the reassessment order passed by the A.O. is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and has been recorded only on borrowed satisfaction. 6. On the fact and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 65(5), New Delhi decided in ITA No. 2728/Del/2018 relevant to assessment year 2008-09 and therefore, she requested that the same ratio may be followed in the present case and appeal of the assessee may be allowed accordingly by quashing the reassessment proceedings. 3. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the reasons recorded and satisfaction / approval accorded is within the meaning of section 151 of the Act and need not to be quashed. He stated that apart from relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the following cases laws may kindly be considered with regard to reopening of cases u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act:- 1. Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) 29018) 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi). i) Where Congress Party gave loan to AJL and assigned said loan to non-profit YI which subsequently issued shares to assesses at a price less than FMV, non-disclosure by assesses of allotment of shares in YI would be a reason to initiate reassessment proceedings. ii) Relying on PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 651/Del/2016 dated 11.1.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) approval u/s. 151 upheld. 2. Raymond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was made on basis of information received from Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of share application provided by a third party, same was justified. 9. Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2016-TIQL-370-HC- AHM-IT It is not open to the assessee to object to the reopening by asking the AO to produce the source from where the AO has gathered the information for forming a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 10. Ankit Aqrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs JCIT Rajasthan High Court [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) Where DIT informed that assessee-company had received share application money from several entities which were only engaged in business of providing bogus accommodation entries to beneficiary concerns, reassessment on basis of said information was justified. 11. Rakesh Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court f20181 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) Where Assessing Officer received information from Principle Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that assessee had received bogus loss from his broker by client code modification, reassessment on basis of said information was just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e peculiar facts of the case in hand. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case laws applicable in the case of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions including the ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi decision dated 16.10.2019 in the case of Dharmender Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 65(5), New Delhi decided in ITA No. 2728/Del/2018 relevant to assessment year 2008-09 wherein the following case laws were followed on similar facts and circumstances of the case. A) United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) In this case, approval by the Addl. CIT u/s. 151 was given in the following terms:- "Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act." Analyzing, the above satisfaction/approval, it has been held that the CIT is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light to eh material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
