9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome for the A.Y. 2009-2010 on 25.09.2009 declaring Rs.(-)5,90,668/- and on 28.09.2010 for the A.Y. 2010-2011 declaring income of Rs. (-)24,235/-. The A.O. received information from Investigation Wing vide letter Dated 12.03.2013 mentioning that search was carried-out in the case of Shri S.K. Jain Group of cases and it is transpired that assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs. 10 lakhs each in both the assessment years under appeal from M/s. VIP Leasing and Finance P. Ltd., and M/s. Mega Top Promoters P. Ltd., in a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs each. The A.O. after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, made additions of Rs. 10 lakhs in both the assessment years under appeals and have also added Rs. 18,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure to obtain accommodation entry. The assessee challenged the re-assessment proceedings as well as additions before the Ld. CIT(A), however, both the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the copies of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment in which the A.O. has mentioned that Section 147(b) is applicable in the aforesaid cases for reopening of the assessment. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capement of income under section 147(b) of the I.T. Act which no longer exist in the statute. The Learned Addl. CIT instead of pointing-out such glaring mistake in the reasons and even finding two Columns 'Blank' in the reasons granted approval, even without mentioning how he was satisfied with the reasons for reopening of the assessment in the matter. Such issue have been examined by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs., ACIT (supra) in which in Paras 5 to 8 it was held as under : 5. Our attention is invited to the sanction given by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on the application by the Assessing Officer seeking his approval in the prescribed form. The prescribed form filled by the Assessing Officer indicated that the notice has been issued under Section 143(b) of the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has while granting the sanction has recorded the word "satisfied". 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no proper sanction in view of non application of mind by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The Assessing Officer has invoked a provision of law to sustain the impugned notice which is admittedly not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invalid. The findings of the Tribunal in paras 23 to 28 is reproduced as under : "23. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the AO, in the instant case, based on the report of the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries from Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and Virendra Kumar Jain controlled/managed companies, reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:- "ANNEXURE- 'A' M/s Shri Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd. J-4-126-B, D.D.A. Flats Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019 Assessment Year; 2005-06 Reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment; Enquiries were conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Dept in the case of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain Group. During the course of post search investigation and preparation of appraisal report it has been evidently established that SH. S.K, Jain and his brother Sh. Virendra Jain are known entry providers and are in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiary companies/e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. No assessment u/s 143(3) has been done earlier. The assessment record is being submitted for kind perusal and approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-8, New Delhi according to section 151(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Sd/- (Nishtha Tiwari) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1), New Delhi" 24. We find, in the performa for recording reasons for initiating proceedings under section 148 and for obtaining approval of the Addl. CIT, the AO at para 7 of the performa has mentioned that the assessee has not filed the return voluntarily. The form for recording reasons for initiating the proceedings is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:- 25. A perusal of the above shows that at clause 7(a) the AO has categorically mentioned that no return has been filed by the assessee. However, a perusal of the paper book page 1 shows that the assessee has duly filed its return of income on 31.3.2006 declaring total loss of Rs. 2,79,76,596/- vide receipt number 0851001128. A perusal of Page 3 of the paper book shows that the return was processed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment by mentioning that no voluntary return has been filed by the assessee and, thus, proceeded to reopen the assessment on wrong appreciation of facts on record. 26. We further find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BPTP vs PCIT, vide Writ Petition No.13803/2018, order dated 11th January 2020, has held that if the AO has failed to perform its statutory duty, he cannot review his decision and reopen on a change of opinion. The reopening is not an empty formality. There has to be relevant tangible material for the AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and there must be a live link with such material for the formation of the belief. Mearly using the expression 'failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts' is not enough. The reasons must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee. Similarly The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anand Developers vs. ACIT, vide Writ Petition No. 17/2020, order dated 18th February, 2020 has held that a mere bald assertion by the AO that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts is not sufficient. The AO h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the reasons along with Annexures and Report of SFIO Dated 05.01.2017 and approval granted by Pr. CIT. The A.O, however intimated that since SFIO report is confidential, therefore, same cannot be provided to the assessee. Thus, the complete Annexures to the reasons were not provided to the assessee and A.O. has also failed to provide copy of the report dated 05.01.2017 to the assessee which is the basis for reopening of the assessment. Assessee cannot be given surprise to file objections without providing all the relevant material. The report Dated 05.01.2017 is the basis for reopening of the assessment and since it is not confronted and provided to assessee, the assessee may not be able to file proper objections to the reopening of the assessment. Thus, the direction given in the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd., vs., ACIT (supra), have not been applied because it is the duty of the A.O. to provide all the documents and reports which are part of the reasons to the assessee before taking steps into the matter. Further the Addl. CIT while granting or forwarding copy of the reasons to the Pr. CIT for his approval did not mention any fact in the proforma which is blank and no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of inquiry made by the Investigation Wing, it also came to the notice that Shri Himanshu Verma was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries through cheques/PO/DD in lieu of cash to large number of beneficiary companies through various paper and dummy companies floated and controlled by him. The cash received from the parties for providing accommodation entries was first deposited in the account of these dummy firms/companies in the guise of cash received against the bogus sales duly shown in the books of account. On the basis of the material available on record, the A.O. after recording reasons for reopening of the assessment, issued notice under section 148 to the assessee on 31.03.2017 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment and requested to provide copy of the approval of Competent Authority under section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee also contended that whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee was not confronted and requested to supply statement of Shri Himanshu Verma, report and data complied / received from Investigation Wing, report and data complied/received by ITO, Ward-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received from 38 parties and made addition of Rs. 11.05 crores. The A.O. further noted that assessee has paid commission in cash for arranging these entries, on which, addition was made of Rs. 22,10,000/- i.e., @ 2% of the amount in question which was also added to the returned income. 3. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as additions on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that assessment framed on the basis of material / documents / information received from third party and without application of mind by the A.O, therefore, whole assessment is invalid and bad in law. It was further submitted that assessee has shown all the amounts in his books of account and return of income filed with the Department. The A.O. has reopened the assessment by mentioning in the reasons that assessee has received entries of Rs. 2.45 crores which fact is incorrect. The initiation of re-assessment have been made merely on the basis of Investigation Wing report without applying the mind. No right of cross-examination have been provided to the assessee to the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma and others. The assessee relied upon the following decisions. 3.1. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) 8. Whether the assessment is proposed to be made for the first time. If the reply is affirmative, please state Yes (a) Whether any voluntary return has already been filed. Yes (b) If so, the date of filing of return 04.02.2011 9. If answer to item 8 is negative, please state (a) Income originally assessed NA (b) Whether it is a case of under assessment, at lower rate, assessment which has been made the subject of excessive relief or allowing excess loss/depreciation. NO 10. Whether the provision of Sec. 150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in affirmative the relevant facts may be stated against Item No. 11 and 8 may also be brought out that the provisions of Sec. 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s. 147. NO 11. Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment. As per annexure. Sd/- H.K. Sharma Dated: 29.03.2017. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was not valid. The assessee also submitted that since no right of cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma, therefore, such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs., Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II reported in 281 CTR 241. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee and confirmed the reopening of the assessment. The assessee also made submissions on merit to show that addition is wholly unjustified. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of assessee and upheld the addition on merit as well. The appeal of assessee was accordingly dismissed. 5. The assessee in the present appeal challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on several grounds, addition of Rs. 11.05 crores under section 68 of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 22,10,000/- on account of commission. 6. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have been received. The A.O. did not take help of any handwriting export before forming any opinion. If replies were not in order, assessee should have been confronted with the material so that assessee could rebut the same. Therefore, such fact could not be taken adversely against the assessee. The assessee never received notice Dated 11.12.2017 for production of the parties for examination. In reasons 06 parties are mentioned which belong to Shri Himanshu Verma, but, in his statement he says 08 parties, but, the A.O. made addition for 38 parties. A.O. made the addition only on the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma, but, the parties did not belong to him. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that since approval is not in accordance with Law, therefore, reopening of the assessment is bad in Law and relied upon the same Judgments as were relied upon before Ld. CIT(A). He has submitted that A.O. did not apply his mind to the reasons and recorded incorrect facts and approval is also given on incorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of wrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunication (P.) Ltd., [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Del.) (HC) 3. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat) (HC). 4. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) (HC). 5. Ankit Financial Services Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) (HC). 6. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) (HC). 7. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd., vs. JCIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) (HC). 8. Yogendrakumar Gupta vs., ITO [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC). 8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is to be examined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The Counsel for Assessee has filed copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment at Page-15 of the Paper Book which reads as under : "M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl.CIT, Range-10, New Delhi that search & seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00000 Join Fashion P. Ltd., 4. 4500000 Management Services P. Ltd., 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd., 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd., TOTAL 2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration as it emerges that transactions shown in the return are not genuine. Apart from the above the assessee company is not doing any real business and keeping in view the huge investments, disallowances u/s 14A read with rule 8D also applicable in the case. The statement given by Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with the self-confessed "accommodation entry providers", whose business is to help assessees bring back their unaccounted money into their books of account. Thus, there is a direct link between the information/available with the department and the income escaping assessment. I have, therefore, reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- has escaped a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd its income had escaped assessment on that account. Therefore, the impugned action of the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. Even the Addl Commissioner had accorded his approval for action under section 147 mechanically. If the Addl. Commissioner had cared to go through the statement of said V 'perhaps he would not have granted his approval, which is mandatory in terms of proviso to subsection (1) of section 151 as the action under section 147 was being initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Legislature has provided certain safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of powers by an Assessing Officer particularly after a lapse of substantial time from completion of assessment. The power vested in the Commissioner to grant or not to grant the approval is coupled with a duty. The Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. In the instant case, there had been no application of mind by the Addl. Commissioner before granting the approval. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the order under appeal is bad in law as the assessing officer has passed the order of assessment u/s 143(3) r/w. s. 147 of the Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. 9. The ld. AR drew our attention towards copy of proforma of obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act along with reasons recorded, which are placed at pgs. 16-18 of the assessee's paper book, submitted that in column 12 Addl. CIT has granted approval without application of mind by writing only 'Yes, I am satisfied'. The ld. AR submitted that as per decision of Hon Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. 231 Taxman 0073 (MP), where the Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied" then, the reopening assessment has to be held as invalid. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.89/Del/2012 dated 09.02.2018. The ld. AR submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in WP (L) No.3063/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act was passed only after 10 days of disposal of objections. These facts trigger the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian paints (supra), wherein their lordship directed that the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after disposing of the objections of the assessee and non-compliance the same renders assessment proceedings void and bad in law. Present impugned reassessment order cannot be held sustainable and valid as the AO has passed the same immediately after 10 days of disposal of/dismissal of objection of the assessee which is clear violation of direction of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian paints (supra) and legal contention of the assessee on this issue are found to be acceptable and we hold so. 13. The ld. AR drew our attention towards reasons recorded and submitted that there is no date in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 147 of the Act that AO should apply independent mind in order to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment had not been fulfilled. 15. The ld. AR submitted that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del), where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned initiation of reassessment proceedings, notice and all consequent proceedings and orders are not valid and bad in law therefore, the same may kindly be quashed. 16. Replying to the above, the ld. DR submitted that the copy of proforma for obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act and reasons recorded by the AO are the internal departmental communication between the PCIT and ACIT and the PCIT being administrative head and senior to the ACIT has power to peruse the approval u/s. 151 of the Act and his sings thereon does not make the same as me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO has acted on suspicion only and not on any credible input available to him through DDIT (investigation) information or otherwise on the basis of any exercise or application of mind by himself. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and all consequent orders are not sustainable and bad in law. Reiterating his earlier arguments, the ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the approval/sanction given in para 12 of the proforma is not a valid sanction as per ratio of the various decisions including decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of S. Goyanka Lime and chemicals Ltd. (supra), which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP of the Revenue reported in 237 Taxman 378 (SC) therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of the Act, reassessment proceedings and all consequent orders may kindly be quashed. 19. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, first of all, we may point out that from the proforma of approval u/s. 151 of the Act placed at pgs. 16-17 of the assessee paper book, it is clear that in column 12 the ACIT has granted approval for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to believe that income has escaped assessment. 21. In view of decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Oversaes (supra), PCIT vs. G&G Pharma (I) Ltd. (supra) and decision in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyviny (I) Ltd. (supra), where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information could not be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. In the case of Meenakshi Overseas (supra), their lordship speaking for the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that where the reasons recorded by the AO failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment then, indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction and the conclusion of the AO based on reproduction of conclusion drawn in the investigation report cannot be held as valid reason to believe after application of mind. In this judgment their lordship also held that where nothing from the report of investigation wing is set out to enable the reader to appreciate h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad in Law. We rely upon Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 (P&H). It is well settled Law that note already filed with return disclosing nature of capital receipt and no other tangible material found, therefore, reopening of the assessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel P. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs., Vardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that "reasons must be based on new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents already on record, 148 not valid." In the instant case under appeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received from Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the reasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act. This information shows that assessee has received the amount of credit from 06 parties, but, one of the party i.e., M/s. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., do not exist and that M/s. Shubh Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that reopening of the assessment is bad in law and that sanction/approval granted by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is also invalid. We may also note that vide Order sheet Dated 23.08.2019 the case was re-fixed for hearing because the Ld. D.R. argued that approval have been granted by Commissioner of Income Tax after due discussion of the matter and perusal of the relevant information and thereafter approval in prescribed proforma sent to the A.O. and he has mentioned that I am satisfied. However, no record was produced. Therefore, this case was re-fixed for fresh hearing. However, on the date of hearing no such record have been produced for the inspection of the Bench. Therefore, satisfaction recorded by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is invalid and without application of mind. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in Law and cannot be sustained in Law. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Resultantly, all additions stands deleted. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is no need to deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed." 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 7. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi G-Bench, Delhi in the case of VRC Township Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (supra) in which reopening of the assessment in identical circumstances was held to be bad in law and sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was also found invalid, therefore, reopening of the assessment was quashed. In the present case, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed-out that assessee has raised this issue before the Ld. CIT(A), but, he has rejected the submissions of the assessee holding that Section 147(b) as mentioned in the reason and Format is a typographical human error which is curable under section 292B of the I.T. Act, 1961. This issue is also considered in the Order of VRC Township Pvt. Ltd., (supra) following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs., ACIT [2017] 100 CCH 165 (Bom.). Following the same reasons for decision, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
