TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumption of jurisdiction illegally by the Respondent and not as per the provisions of section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act apart from being barred by limitation and the impugned assessment order is liable to quashed as unsustainable, both on facts and in law. 2. The Respondent has not replied to the objection specifically raised by the assessee during the course of proceeding therefore impugned order passed ought to have been set aside by Ld. CIT(A) and failure to do so has vitiated the impugned order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Reassessment having been passed in violation of natural justice by the Respondent ought to have been set aside by the CIT(A) and failure to do so has vitiated the impugned order. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the illegal additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating unexplained income by the Respondent as justified ignoring the fact that the amount was received on account of share application money and also ignoring the records, documents and explanation already filed before the ITO which were not properly verified and accepted by him. Hence, the order may be vacated and demand may be deleted. 5. Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Harish Kumar & Sons (HUF) and an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- for unexplained cash credit received in the name of M/s. Arpit Sales Corporation. 4. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), raising the issue of jurisdiction for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as merit of the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) after dealing with the submission of the assessee upheld the validity of the action u/s 148 of the Act as well as the addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is before the Tribunal. 5. In ground No. 1, the assessee has raised issue of jurisdiction u/s 147 to 151 of the Act and in grounds No. 2 and 3, the assessee has raised issue of not dealing his objections and violation of natural justice by the CIT(A). 6. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons in mechanical manner without application of mind and thus reopening of the assessment was bad in law and beyond jurisdiction. Further he relied on the decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench dated 14.08.2014 in the case of ITO vs. Comero Leasing & Financial Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 4281/Del/2010. On the ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the appellant and thereafter repeated adjournments were allowed to the appellant. This shows that the recorded reason was duly communicated to the appellant. Neither it was contested nor it was adduced as ground that recorded reason was not supplied to the appellant, rather it was the appellant who repeatedly failed to produce the Director of the investing companies before the AO and to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 3.3 The question therefore, is whether there were material before the AO to entertain the belief that the appeollatn has nto disclosed Rs. 3,00,000/- from HKSH & ASC. The appellant filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 31.10.2002. In the said return it did nto show such amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from HKSH & ASC. The point was never being a part of the order as it was made u/s 143(1) and hence the income has escaped the attention of the AO. 3.4 The AO had material for forming the belief that the appellant has nto disclosed Rs. 3,00,000/- from HKSH & ASC. The fact that the AO could prima-facie form such a belief would also be evident from the material available on record. Further it has alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stment or loan or in any other forms. The AO while recording reasons verified that the information belonged to the assessee and it belonged to the relevant assessment year under consideration and the information was received from a reliable source i.e. the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and thereafter he recorded satisfaction that he had reason to believe that there was a escapement of income in the case , therefore, in the circumstances it cannot be said that AO has not applied his mind. In the case of ITO vs. Comero Leasing & Financing Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) cited by the ld. AR, the assessment was completed and the records were available with the AO before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, whereas in the case of assessee, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act only and no scrutiny assessment was completed before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, thus, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable of the fact of the case of the assessee. We also agree with the contention of ld Sr DR that sufficiency or correctness of the material cannot be considered at the stage of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of th....