TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion as now, information is received from ITO, Ward-19(3), New Delhi . This astuteness of Ld. AO in not mentioning the date of the intimation makes the reopening reasons tainted with arbitrainess and the satisfaction recorded cannot be considered to be based on any new information. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order sought a remand report with regard to ledger accounts, copy of invoices, copy of bank statements and the physical evidences in the form of photographs of the goods purchased from Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. and Ld. AO forwarded report to Ld. CIT(A) that in remand proceedings after taking into consideration the evidences, the purchases from Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. were found to be in order. Still, Ld. CIT(A) preferred to rely the intimation received from ITO, Ward- 9(2), New Delhi to give finding that as that assessing officer has held M/s. Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. to be accommodation entry provider the reopening was valid. The Bench is of considered opinion that the findings of Ld. ITO, Ward-9(2), New Delhi were not so sacrament so as to brush aside the inquiry and remand proceeding report dated 30.03.2019 submitted by the Ld. AO of the assessee. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd complete disclosure of all material facts, and no fresh tangible material coming in possession with the Ld. AO, proceedings initiated and carried out u/s 147 in March, 2017, are without jurisdiction and are barred by limitation. 3. That approval u/s 151 having been obtained on facts mis stated and not verified render the proceedings u/s 147/148 bad in law, liable to be quashed. 4. That Rs. 23,71,061/- added to income is on surmise and conjecture, without bringing any credible material on record to establish that vinyl sheets purchased by the assessee company from Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. are bogus accommodation bills. Addition made to income is bad in law, liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant prays that it be permitted to amend, alter, delete, modify, substitute all or any of the grounds of ap0peal above, and or add any fresh ground of appeal, before or during the appeal proceedings. 4. Heard and perused the record. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that Ld. AR has restricted argument to issue no. 1, 2 and 4 and did not press ground no. 3. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee by ld. AR that the orders of the Ld. Tax Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s P. Ltd. 404 ITR 574 (Allahabad HC) iv. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay HC) v. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. [TS-29-HC- 2012(Del.) dated 21.08.2012 (Delhi HC) vi. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (119 ITR 996) (Hon ble Supreme Court) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. He relied Hon ble Supreme Court judgement in Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. P Ltd Vs CIT 2001 247 ITR 818 SC to contend that it is not case of mere change of opinion and there was fresh material available to reopen the assessment. 7. Now, appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that Ld. DR was not able to controvert all the factual aspects argued by Ld. AR. There is no dispute to the fact that while calling for information u/s 142(1) of the Act, vide letter dated 27.09.2012 available at page no. 36 of the paper book the ld. AO had called for following information : 14. Please furnish the details of purchases / direct expenses (of Rs. 68.10 crores) job work (of Rs. 3.24 crores) as appearing in the books of account for F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved from ITO, Ward-9(2), New Delhi about suspicious purchases from M/s. Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. But the Ld. AO of assessee restricted the reopening and reassessment to the issue of share capital and share premium only and without any indulgence to the information in hand the available about purchases from Stans Networking Pvt. Ltd. Thus, when the first reassessment order was passed on 19.06.2014, as Ld. AO was aware of the fact of scrutiny of the issue of purchases and the assessment concluded u/s 143(3), so quite likely for that reason, there was no action on the intimation letter dated 01.04.2013. 11. However, the Ld. AO quite arbitrarily seems to have resurrected the issue by recording reasons available at page no. 107 and 108 of the paper book wherein without referring to letter dated 01.04.2013 from ITO, Ward- 9(2), New Delhi. Ld. AO merely reproduced the intimation by referring to the intimation as now, information is received from ITO, Ward-19(3), New Delhi . This astuteness of Ld. AO in not mentioning the date of the intimation makes the reopening reasons tainted with arbitrainess and the satisfaction recorded cannot be considered to be based on any new informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
