TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come in response to such notice, requests the AO to supply the reasons for reopening, AO is bound to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment and only after disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the assessee, can the AO proceed to reassess the income of the assessee. In this case, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not followed the due procedure as mandated by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (cited Supra). We deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to supply the reasons for reopening of the assessment to the assessee and only after disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the assessee, the AO shall proceed to rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had escaped the assessment and therefore, he issued notices u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. Inspite of several notices given to the assessee, none appeared for the assessee except for filing a reply dated 24.12.2018 and furnishing of return of income, bank a/c copies and sources of payment i.e. withdrawal from M/s Jitender Roller Flour Mills, a partnership firm where karta of HUF is one of the three partners. The Assessing Officer observed that though the assessee has stated that he has furnished the sources of investment and the shares were acquired through SEBI approved broker on platform of recognized stock exchange, the investigation report received from the PMO clearly stated that these penny stock companies are being used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dged by the A.O in the order, therefore the CIT(A) ought to have held that there was no unexplained investment as provided u/s 69B and therefore erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 12,77,500/-. 3. The CIT (A) failed to note that the addition was made in pursuance to reopening of the case u/s 148, hence it was mandatory on part of A.O to provide reasons for reopening the case, which he failed and therefore the CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessment u/s 147 without providing the reasons for reopening and without affording the opportunity to the assessee to file his objections if any, would be unsustainable in law. 4. The CIT (A) failed to note that merely investment in a dubious company does not make the investment unexplai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letters nor there was any mention of supplying the reasons for reopening of the assessment to the assessee. Though a specific ground was taken before the CIT (A),he has not held the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors reported in (2002) Supp(4) SCR 359 on 25 November, 2002, held that where a notice u/s 148 is issued and the assessee, after filing of the return of income in response to such notice, requests the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons for reopening, the Assessing Officer is bound to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment and only after disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the assessee, can the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
