TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 2005-06 respectively. 2. The ground of appeal raised in both the appeals is identically worded, except change of assessment year. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for convenience and brevity. ITA No. 663/Del/2010, for AY: 2004-05 3. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 663/Del/2010. The ground of appeal in ITA No. 663/Del/2010 for assessment year 2004-05, reads as under: "Ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the assessment for the AY 2004-05 without considering the fact that the AO has followed all the statutory procedures for reopening the case under section 147 of the IT Act and framing the assessment under section 144 of the IT Act." 4. The facts in brief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r holding that proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act were not valid. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the order of the AO submitted that the assessee did not participate in the reassessment proceedings, which were initiated in accordance to law, and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), was not justified in questioning the reassessment proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative of the assessee filed paper book containing pages 1 to 142 and submitted that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law and beyond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and how the figure of Rs. 12 lakh came was not mentioned. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has dealt the objections of the assessee in respect of non-service of the notice as well as lack of credible information on the basis of which he could have a reason to believe that income escaped assessment. The relevant finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals) are as under: "4.2 I also find that the AO was requested by the ITO, Ward 18(1) to confirm the factum of investment by the appellant of Rs. 5 Lacs towards share application money in Unique Plus Agro & Expo Pvt. Ltd. through a demand draft no. 452458 dated 19/8/2003 from bank account with Punjab & Sind Bank, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. I also notice that the AO had iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the learned AO clearly show that the learned AO wanted to inquire the credit balances in the bank statement of the appellant. The AO was clearly not in possession of any 'information' that could draw any adverse findings regarding escapement of income through credit entries in the bank account. The provision of section 147 empower the AO to start the re-assessment proceedings only when the AO has "reason to believe" that any income charging to tax has "escaped assessment". In the instant case the AO was not in a possession of any information that could be inferred in any possible manner as escapement of income in respect of credit entries, while in the admission of the AO, in the assessment order, the proceedings were initiated f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were). I also observe that the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 21110/2008 was issued at a different address at 5227/81, Raigar Pura, while final notice u/s. 148 was issued at 5228/81, Raigar Pura, which too was not the address of the appellant, as shown in the case record. In view of this since the notice was not issued for the right address, there is absolutely no likelihood that it would have ever been served upon the appellant. Moreover, AR on inspection found both copies of the notices 148, lying unsigned in the file, which clearly shows that the notice was void and not served. 4.5 In view of the above, I hold that the proceedings initiated by the learned AO by issue of notice u/s. 148 in' itself were invalid being not based on a....