TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6(2). 2. The Assessing Authority has erred in making an addition of Rs. 6 lacs to the declared income from undisclosed sources. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 6 lacs made by the ITO, Ward 6(2). 3. This addition made is unjustified and against law and facts of the case. The order is passed by authorities below are unjustified unwarranted and against law and facts of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28.10.2005 declaring income of Rs. 96,030/-. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 27.1.2005. In this case information was received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) that M/s Mann Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pletion of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act without satisfying the statutory preconditions for initiation of the proceedings and, completion of assessment under the Act. He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act on the basis of information received from DIT(Inv.) mechanically and without independent application of mind. He further stated that the reasons recorded were mere reasons to suspect and were just to make fishing and roving enquiries, as no independent enquiry was conducted by the AO before issuing such notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act and as such the proceeding initiated under section 148 was a mere pretence. To support his contention he submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax (Investigation), New Delhi that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- as follows:- Beneficiary's name Beneficiary bank name Beneficiary bank branch Value of entry Taken Date on which entry taken Name of account holder of entry giving account Bank from which entry given Branch of entry giving bank a/c No. entry giving account Mann Finance & Leasing P Ltd. PSB Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 300000 3.6.2004 Umesneh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Keshav Sehkari K.B. 625 Mann Finance Leasing Pvt. Ltd. PSB Tilak Nagar 300000 3.6.2004 Umesneh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Keshav Sehkari K.B. 625 Mann Finance Leasing Pvt. Ltd. PSB Tilak Nagar 300000 6.7.2004 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the year. In my 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 I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. My view is fully supported by the following judgment/decision:- Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA No. 545/2015 dated 8.10.2015 of the Delhi High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case. 13. Mr. Sawhney took the Court through the order of the CIT(A) to show how the CIT (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 ....