TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment Year ("AY") 2003-04. 2. The issue sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer ("AO") has not applied his mind and not come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment which was the jurisdictional requirement for reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act. 3. The Assessee filed its return on 14th November 2004 at Rs. 1,190/- which was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 1st March 2004. Thereafter, on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Investigation, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act to the Assessee on 19th March 2010 i.e., more ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, Mr. Sawhney produced before the Court the very same letter of the AO dated 15th September 2010 which has been reproduced in its entirely in the impugned order of the ITAT. He submitted that the AO was himself present in the Court and further efforts would be made to locate the materials on the basis of which the AO formed his opinion regarding reopening of the assessment. The Court was not prepared to grant further time for this purpose since it was not clear that the materials were, in fact, available with the Department. 7. Mr. Sawhney, has placed extensive reliance on the decision dated 21st March 2012 passed by this Court in ITA No. 643 of 2011 (CIT v. India Terminal Connector System Ltd.) where, according to Mr. Sawhney, in simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the AO had received certain communications from the Commissioner of Income Tax showing that the alleged creditors of the Assessee were "name-lenders and the transactions are bogus." The AO came to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. The Supreme Court disagreed and observed that the AO "had not even come to a prima facie conclusion that the transactions to which he referred were not genuine transactions. He appeared to have had only a vague felling that they may be '"bogus transactions'." It was further explained by the Supreme Court that: "Before issuing a notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the civil appeal. The Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment." 11. The above basic requirement of Sections 147/148 has been reiterated in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. Recently, this Court rendered a decision dated 22nd September 2015 in ITA No. 356 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax II v. Multiplex Trading and Industrial Co. Ltd.) where the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years. This Court considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del). The Court noted that a material change had been brought abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid context that this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) explained that the ratio of the decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) may not be entirely applicable since the same was in respect of Section 147(a) as it existed prior to the amendment." 12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: "I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccount....