TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has held that Assessing Officer issued 148 notice with the incorrect reasons. Therefore Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for reopening the assessment with incorrect reasons which is bad in law. In light of the above facts on record, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the above findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA NO. 947/MUM/2021 CO.NO.149/MUM/2021 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2022 - SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by : Shri T. Shankar ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by the revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in response, the assessee filed the objections on disputing the validity of notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's contentions vide Disposal of objection order dated 09/03/2015. Thereafter, the assessee participated in assessment and filed detailed submissions and documentary evidences to prove the identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of share application monies received from 5 share applicants of ₹.3,90,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, had not disputed the fact that the share applicants do not belong to Shri Shirish C Shah. The Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of share application money received from 1 share applicant of ₹.1,90,00,000/-, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee. ... 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the validity of notice u/s 148 could be tested only on considering the reasons recorded while issuing the notice u/s 148 and if the reasons are faulty, then the notice u/s 148 and entire reassessment could be annulled. The Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer is not permitted to alter or modify the recorded reasons and placed reliance on the judicial decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of M/s Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 95 CCH 19 (Bom) and M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd v. R B Wadkar reported in 269 ITR 332 (Bom) and Shri Prashat S Joshi v. ITO reported in 324 ITR154 (Bom). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer, in remand report dated 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer and Ld. AR relied on order of the First Appellant Authority. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the reasons recorded for reopening that assessee has received share application money from Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who provides accommodation entries. Subsequently when the remand report filed before Ld.CIT(A) in which Assessing Officer has agreed that share applicants do not belong to Shri Shirish C. Shah group. Accordingly, Ld.CIT(A) has held that Assessing Officer issued 148 notice with the incorrect reasons. Therefore Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for reopening the assessment with incorrect reasons which is bad in law. In l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
