TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1023/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, J. Appellant by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 04.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad on the following grounds:- 1. That there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently the reassessment framed by the AO is also bad in law. 2. That there was no reason to believe as contemplated u/s. 147/148 of the Act and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction as made by AO is bad in law and the reassessment so framed in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is also invalid. 3. That without prejudice to grounds no. 1 and 2 above, the addition of ₹ 40 lacs, being the gift received from various relatives, as made by the AO, is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate very excessive. 4. That the addition of ₹ 10 lacs, received from mother Smt. Sushma Devi made from known sources, is based on surmises and conjectures not admissible in law. 5. That the assessee den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches and requested that the same may kindly be considered with regard to reopening of cases u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act. 1. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 341 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon ble Supreme Court held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 2. Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped income, will not debar the AO from exercising his jurisdiction to assess the assessee on reopening notice.. 4. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court T20141 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had received bogus loss from his broker by client code modification, reassessment on basis of said information was justified. 12. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC). SLP dismissed against High Court s order that non-compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2002) 125 Taxman 963 that on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, Assessing Officer is bound to dispose objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment order void ab initio. 13. Baldevbahi Bhikhabhai Patel vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) (2018) 94 Taxmann.co, 428(Gujarat) Where revenue produced bunch of documents to suggest that entire proposal of reopening of assessment alongwith reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for same were placed before Additional Commissioner who, upon perusal of same, recorded his satisfaction that it was a fit case for issuance of notice for reopening assessment, reassessment notice issued against assessee was justified. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, the impugned order as well as the case laws relied by both the parties, reasons recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. With this background, we may revert to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Information from the Value Added Tax Department of Mumbai was placed for his consideration. This information contained list of allegedly bogus purchases made by various beneficiaries from Hawala dealers. Assessee was one of them. As per this information, he had made purchases worth ₹ 3.21 crores (rounded off) from such Hawala dealers during the financial year 2010-11. According to the Assessing Officer, this information 'needed deep verification'. 9. If on the basis of information made available to him and upon applying his mind to such information, the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Court would have readily allow him to reassess the income. In the present case however, he recorded that the information required deep verification. In plain terms therefore, the notice was being issued for such verification. His later recitation of the mandatory words that he believed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would not cure this fundamental defect. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue however u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
