TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal and consequently, the impugned assessment order as passed u/s 147/143(3) is unlawful and unjust and therefore the same deserved to be annulled/cancelled. 3. That without prejudice to ground No.2 above, no justification subsisted on the part of the Ld. AO in making an additions aggregating at Rs. 83,15,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credits and the same ought to have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) keeping in view the submissions made before her supported by documentary evidence and also in view of the judicial pronouncements. 4. That without prejudice to ground No. 3 above, the additions aggregating at Rs. 83,15,000/- towards the assessable income of the Assessee are very excessive. Various observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders are either incorrect or untenable. Detailed written submissions alongwith the paper book as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the arguments advanced by the Counsel had not been appreciated properly or had been ignored. 5. That the interest as levied u/s 234 is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice very excessive. 6. That the appellant reserves its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns during the financial year 2002-03 relevant to assessment year 2003-04 so as to introduce its unaccounted money into its account. Thereafter, considering the reply of the assessee, AO passed an order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.11.2010 assessing the total income of Rs. 97,25,933/-. 5. Against the Order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 30.1.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the assesseee. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has only argued the legal ground raised vide ground no. 2 stating that the provisions of section 147/148 of the I.T. Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case and therefore, the issue of notice u/s. 147/148 was illegal and consequently, the impugned assessment order as passed u/s. 147/143(3) is unlawful and unjust and therefore the same deserved to be annulled / cancelled. In support of his contention he filed the various Paper Books enclosing therewith the assessment and appellate records and a compilation of various case laws having pages 1 to 208. He further stated that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce the reasons recorded for reopening the case as under:- "Information from the office of the DIT(Inv.)-I, New Delhi has been received that the assessee M/s Shruti Fastners Ltd. has received an accommodation entry of Rs. 5.82 crores. Into its bank account from different companies / concerns during the financial year 2002-03 relevant to assessment year 2003-04 so as to introduce its unaccounted money into its accounts. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 5.892 crores has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2003-04. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act is issued to the assessee." 9.1 On going through the above reasons recorded by the AO, we are of the view that AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (A) discussed the materials produced during the hearing of the appeal. The Court would like to observe that this is in the nature of a post mortem exercise after the event of reopening of the assessment has taken place. While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity . 14. In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the ITAT cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises. 15. The appeal is dismissed." (b) Signature Hotels (P)_ Ltd. vs. ITO and another reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) has under similar circumstances as follows:- "For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax A....