TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but on the other material. 4. The Cit has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of gift received from Shri Kesho Ram Gupta. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of gift received from Shri Manish Kumar Aggarwal. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in holding that both the gifts are not genuine. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, and withdraw any ground of appeal before or during the appellate proceedings." 2. In this case in the reassessment order Assessing Officer has added a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee being gift received from two persons. 3. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee has challenged the proceedings u/s. 147 on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for reopening of assessment. Considering the assessee's submissions, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the issue and held as under:- "I have considered the order of the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhavari Stock Brokers P Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC)[2007]. (xi) Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory vs. JCIT PN Prasad, 252 ITR 673 (Bom) [2001] (xii) C.I.T. vs. Highgain Finvest P Ltd. 304 ITR 325 (Del) [2008] (xiii) ITO vs. Biju Pathaik, 188 ITR 247 (SC) [1991]. (xiv) ITO vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur, 102 ITD 189 (Del ITAT) [2006] (xv) Gurea Gas Cylinders P Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 258 ITR 170 (P&H) [2002]. (xvi) Mulchand Rampunia vs. ITO, 252 ITR 758 (Cal) [2001]. (xvii) G Sukesh vs. DCIT 252 ITR 230 (Ker) [ 2001]. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the submission of the assessee against the proceedings u/s. 147 and accordingly, the action of the Assessing Officer u/s. 147/148 is confirmed." 4. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the reasons recorded in this case are vague and scanty and reasons for reopening is not valid on that account. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment clearly indicates that Assessing Officer filled up a proforma report alleging it to be reasons recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try from Swetu Stone PV for Rs. 5 lacs." 6.2 On the above reasons recorded the Hon'ble High Court vide para 15 has expounded as under:- "The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income. Further, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. The Assessing Officer accepted the plea on the basis of vague information in a mechanical manner. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax also acted on the same basis by mechanically giving his approval. The reasons recorded reflect that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind to the information received from the Director Of IT (Inv.) and arrive at a belief whether or not any income had escaped assessment." 6.3 Another per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y applicable to the facts of this appeals." 6.4 Now we examine the present case on the anvil of the above two Jurisdictional High Court decisions. We find that circumstances are identical. The reasons recorded in the present case are also scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement except mentioned of supplementary list of beneficiaries. This can not be regarded as material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes escapement of income. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis of the information. Assessing Officer has accepted the information in a mechanical manner. Assessing Officer did not verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer has not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and therefore the Assessing Officer's action is not in a....