TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on factsand in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, is bad and liable to be quashed as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 4. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment under Section 143(3). 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by learned A.O. under Section 147 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same has been passed without service of statutory notice under section 148. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by AO is bad both in the eye of law and on facts as the same has been passed without receiving statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The AO issued the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to furnish certain information in regard to proceedings for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO framed the assessment ex-parte u/s 147/144 of the Act at an income of Rs. 73,11,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. The ld. CIT(A), however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and sustained the action of the AO. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return in this case was filed on 12.10.2001 declaring a loss of Rs. 93,318/-. A reference was made to page no. 1 of the assessee's paper book. It was fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law. The reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT SMC Bench, New Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward-2, Mohindergarh Vs Smt. Sarti Devi and Sh. Rati Ram in ITA Nos. 3098 & 3099/Del/2014 order dated 27.10.2015 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on the record). It was further submitted that the reopening was done only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and no mind has been applied by the AO, therefore, the reopening was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: *Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del.) *Principal Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the considered view that according to Section 151(1) of the IT. Act, after the expiry of the 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that is fit case for the issue of such notice. In my view the case of the Assessee is fall under section 151(1) of the I.T. Act and not u/s. 151(2) of the I.T. Act, because according to section 151(2) in the cases other than the case fallen under sub-section (1) of Section 151, no notice shall be issued u/s. 148 by the AO, who is below the rank of JCIT, unless the JCIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such AO, that is a fit case for the issuance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95) 5 SSC 302. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon'ble High Courts mentioned in the impugned order, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and decide the issue against the Revenue." 10. In the present case also the reopening beyond 4 years has been done by getting the approval of Addl. Commissioner and not from the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Pr. Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was invalid. 11. Furthermore, this cas....