TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CROSS OBJECTION NO. 58/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Dr. Rakesh gupta, Adv. Sh. Tarun Kumar, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Department has filed the Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection which is emanate from the Order dated 12.11.2009 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2000-01. The grounds raised in the revenue s appeal reads as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 82,14,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 especially when the identity and credit worthiness of the subscribers to the share application money and genuineness of transaction, were not established satisfactorily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,05,350/- made on account of commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries in guise of share application money. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee in the Cross Objection rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection challenging the legal issue of reopening of assessment. 6. Now we first deal with the Assessee s Cross Objection and adjudicate upon the legal issue of reopening of assessment. 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has only argued the legal ground challenging the validity of reopening u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act by stating that action of the Assessing Officer is illegal, because no proper reasons were recorded; no nexus between the materials relied upon and the belief formed for escapement of income; no application of mind; no proper satisfaction was recorded before issue of notice u/s. 148; no independent conclusion that there was escapement of income and no proper satisfaction / approval has been obtained from the Addl. CIT. He further submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court Decision dated 08.10.2015 passed in ITA No. 545/2015 in the case of Pr. CIT-4 vs. G G Pharma India Ltd., wherein the Tribunal s decision dated 09.1.2015 has been upheld. In this behalf, he filed the copy of the order dated 08.10.2015 of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT vs. G G Phar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are 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. Our view is supported by the following judgment/decision:- Pr. CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA No. 545/2015 dated 8.10.2015 of the Delhi High Court wherein the Hon ble Court has adjudicated the issue as under:- 12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries. The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections. The assessee company filed writ petition and challenged the notice and the order on objections. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under: (i) Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the reason to believe are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. (ii) A notice u/s.148 can be quashed if the belief is not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and nonspecific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer, when he recorded the reasons. There should be a link between the reasons and the evidence/material available with the Assessing Officer. (iii) The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
