TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expired. Therefore, there was no valid reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the reopening of assessment of the appellant not sustainable in the eyes of law. iii. There was no independent application of mind by the assessing officer in reopening the assessment of the assessee. Information given by the DIT (Investigation) is not "reason to believe" without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, no independent application of mind was there by the assessing officer before reopening the assessment of the assessee. iv. No income of the assessee had escaped assessment in the relevant Assessment Year. The tax due had been discharged by the assessee in the assessment year itself. v. The assessee had discharged his primary onus of establishing the identity of the donors. The address and the identification of the donors had been established by the assessee. In absence of any other material on record to show otherwise, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that the identity of the donors was not established. Moreover, the recourse to section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not taken by the Ld. Assessing Officer to call upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso preferred before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, and give another opportunity to the assessee to raise objections to 'reasons to believe' recorded by the Assessing Officer. Reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in both the assessment years was even upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was the assessee's own creation that it did not ask for the reasons or raise objection thereto. Merely because the assessee was oblivious of such a right would not mean that the Tribunal should have granted this right to the assessee, that too, at the stage when the matter was before the Tribunal and travelled much beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. It is trite that what cannot be done directly, it is not allowed indirectly as well. This novel and in genuineness method adopted by the Tribunal in setting aside the reassessment orders on merits could not be accepted. Even otherwise, the assessee had not supplied any purchase inasmuch as it was still open to the assessee to challenge the validity of reassessment notice before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in fact, the assessee did so f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e felt aggrieved to such order and filed the appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) has passed an appropriate order on this issue. Thus, we hold that the assessment was reopened by issuing a legal and valid notice u/s 148 of the Act. On the procedural aspect also, there is no infirmity in the notice. The notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) were also properly served on the representative of the assessee. 3.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of A.G. Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 352 ITR 364 has held that there is no requirement in section 147 of the Act or section 148 or section 149 that the reasons recorded for reopening an assessment should also accompany the notice of reassessment issued u/s 148. The requirement in section 149(1) is only that the notice u/s 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation. There is also no requirement in section 148(2) that the reasons recorded shall be served along with the notice of reopening the assessment. The requirement, which is mandatory, is only that before issuing the notice to reopen the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall record his reasons for doin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rden lies on the assessee to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the entry. But if the entry does not stand in the name of any such person having a close relation or connection with the assessee, but in the name of an independent party, the burden will still lie on him to establish the identity of that party and to satisfy the Incometax Officer that the entry is real and not fictitious. Once the identity of the third party is established before the Income-tax Officer and other such evidence are prime facie placed before him pointing to the fact that the entry is not fictitious, the initial burden lying on the assessee can be said to have been duly discharged by him. It will not, therefore, be for the assessee to explain further as to how or in what circumstances the third party obtained the money or how or why he came to make an advance of the money as a loan to the assessee. Once such identity is established and the creditors, as in the present case, have pledged their oath that they have advanced the amounts in question to the assessee, the burden immediately shifts on to the department to show as to why the assessee's case could not be accepted and as to why it m....