TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that initiation of reopening proceedings in the present case, merely based on the vague information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, without application of mind by the Assessing Officer thereupon and in absence of obtaining of approval in the manner provided u/s 151 of the Act, was not valid and the assessment in question framed in furtherance thereto is held void-ab-initio and is accordingly quashed. The ground Nos. 1.1 and 2 are thus allowed. Addition u/s 68 - We find substance in the above submission of the learned senior counsel that by furnishing all the primary evidences like confirmation of share applicant, a public limited company containing their address and PAN, their balance sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year under consideration, their income-tax return acknowledgement and with this admitted position that the share application money of Rs. 5 lacs has been paid by the share applicant to the assessee through account payee cheque, the assessee had discharged its primary onus to establish the genuineness of the claimed receipt of share application money and the onus was thereafter shifted upon the AO to rebut the same. AO in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed assessee has questioned first appellate order on the issues of validity of reopening of assessment (ground Nos. 1.2 and 2) and the addition of Rs.5 lacs to the income on account of unexplained share application money. 4. Since the issue raised in ground Nos. 1.2 and 2 is legal in nature going to the root of the matter, we preferred to adjudicate upon it first and parties were directed to advance their respective argument in this regard. 5. In support of the above grounds, the senior counsel Smt. P.L. Bansal contended that the assessee had raised objections against the validity of notice issued under sec. 148 of the Act before the Assessing Officer on several points. These were that the reasons recorded for initiation of reopening proceedings was not approved by the Joint CIT for his satisfaction to belief that income was escaped assessment in terms of section 151 of the Act. She referred page Nos. 2 and 3 of the paper book showing that the reasons were not approved by the Joint CIT. The belief of the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment has been formed on a mere CD/report and without having the possession of the copies of relevant statement etc. recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not allowed by the A.O. Both on the issue of validity of initiation of reopening proceedings and on the merit of the addition in question, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Signature Hotel P. Ltd. vs. ITO Anr. (2011) -338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Principal CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. ITA 545/2015 order dated 8.10.2015 (Delhi High Court); iii) M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 order dated 2.9.2015 (S.C); iv) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Co. (2010) 321 ITR 526 (Del.); v) CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Ltd. (2008) 217 CTR 494 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd.- 361 ITR 147 (Del.); vii) CIT vs. Pardeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.). 7. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had formed reasons to his belief after application of his mind on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry provider. The information was specific, hence, it cannot be said that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, without application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer on such information or without verifying such information. Admittedly, the material and statements of some persons on the basis of which the Investigation Wing of the Department claimed to have arrived at a conclusion that the assessee had taken accommodation entry, despite request of the assessee made to the Assessing Officer, were not supplied to the assessee nor any opportunity to cross examine those persons whose statements were used against the assessee was afforded to the assessee. Even approval of the competent officer has not been obtained as a token of his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of reopening proceedings in the manner prescribed under sec. 151 of the Act. We thus respectfully following the ratios laid down in the above cited recent decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the cases of Principal CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. (supra) and Signatures Hotel P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) hold that initiation of reopening proceedings in the present case, merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
