TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducing the conclusions of investigation report in his own words is indeed borrowed satisfaction as contended by counsel for the assessee. Consequently, the Bench is inclined to decide these grounds of cross objection in favour of the assessee. Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 571, 572/Del/2021, C.O. Nos. 33 and 34/Del./2021 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2022 - DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Pulkit Saini, Advocate For the Respondents : Rinku Singh, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM The Revenue has preferred these appeals against the orders dated 19.02.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- 30, New Delhi in appeal no. 312/18-19/4213 for the assessment year 2011-12 and appeal no. 10438/2019-20 for the assessment year 2012-13. The ITA No. 571/Del/2021, A.Y. 2011-12 arises out of assessment order dated 27.12.2018 the ITA No. 572/Del/2021, A.Y. 2012-13 arises out of order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ACIT, Circle-30, New Delhi. The Cross-objections to same have been filed by the Assessee. However, as the issues involved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved. The following are grounds raised in appeal for AY 2011-12:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,90,58,579/- and Rs. 2,90,585/- made by the AO u/s. 68 and u/s. 69C of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 2,90,58,579/- without ascertaining the facts that the sale was genuine wherein the addition of the AO u/s. 68 was based on concrete evidences. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in laws or facts by not disallowing the corresponding purchase of Rs. 2,81,68,152/- against the bogus sale of Rs. 2,90,58,579/- 4. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal were without prejudice to each other. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4.1. The following are grounds raised in Cross Objections for AY 2011-12:- 1. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 was illegal. 2. That on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the relevant assessment year has escaped. It was submitted that in present case there was no tangible material before the Ld. AO as a basis for recording reasons to believe that any income has escaped income and merely relying the information/communication received from capital DDIT (Investigation), AO proceeded for reassessment and passing the order. It was submitted that the income of relevant assessment year was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) and a search assessment u/s. 153A of the Act which were available with the Ld. AO but instead of examining these on borrowed satisfaction the reassessment was done. In this context, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 to contend that any finding based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions cannot be sustained. He relied judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Avtee Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 395 ITR 434 (Delhi) to contend that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO should make it clear as to what tangible material was considered by the Ld. AO. Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenaksh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice u/s. 147/148 of the Act solely on the basis of information received from the capital DIT(I) had observed; 23. Thus, the crucial link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material need not be set out. However, something therein which is critical to the formation of the belief must be referred to. Otherwise the link goes missing. 24. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power not to be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. The heart of the provision is the formation of belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections to the reopening are considered or even during the assessment proceedings that follow. This is the bare minimum mandatory r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
