TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... far stronger than the expression "satisfied" and thus in the absence of any material, the Assessing Officer could not to be said to have a "reason to believe" within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act in the absence of existence of tangible material for the reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, as he had no material other than the mere general information. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer recorded reason for the believed on 30/31.03.2010 and had no material with him. other than just mere alleged information, unsupported by any material that any income of the assessee had escaped assessment and thus in the absence of any such a material, (As is required for valid initiation of proceedings), the proceedings initiated could not have been held to have been validly initiated, since he could not be said to have a reason to believe. 5. That the learned C1T (Appeals) has failed to comprehend that, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered by the assessee in support of the fact that the credits appearing in the books of accounts were duly explained and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable in law 9.1 That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in observing and concluding that "since the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- and has failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity and credit worthiness of the creditors and establishing the genuineness of the transactions as cast upon it by section 68 of the Act'. 9.2 That the learned C1T (Appeals) has also erred while ignoring the details, confirmations and evidences given by the assessee in respect of outstanding share application of Rs. 15,25,000/- which was received from M/s Rotographics (India) Limited and same could not have been from M/s. Aggregate Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Garner Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd.. as these amounts were duly returned within one month only i.e. in August, 2003 itself. 10. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 30,000/- on account of purported commission, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35/Del/2013 dated 13.12.2013) (iii) M/s Laureate Educational Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No.l945/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 dated 31.12.2013) (iv) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer reported in 338 ITR 51 (v) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) (vi) CIT vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 254 (DELHI) (vii) CIT vs. Atul Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del) 2. Proceedings under section 147 of the Act cannot be initiated on the basis of the stale information (Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (W.P.(C) 1608/2013 & CM Appl. 3024/2013 dated 14.02.2014). 3. Unless there is fresh material, as distinguished from mere allegation in the form of information, recourse under section 147 of the Act cannot be resorted: i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. M/s Orient Craft Limited reported in 354 ITR 536 (SLP filed by the revenue has been dismissed by the Apex Court) ii) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHRI ATUL KUMAR SWAMI (ITA No. 112/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued under section 131 of the Act and assessee has also furnished complete documentary evidence to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction and hence the burden which lay upon the assessee under section 68 of the Act stood discharged, (at pages 23-36 of PB and pages 6-102 of PB) :- i. CIT vs. Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 ii. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. reported in 248 CTR 33 iii. CIT vs. vs. Nipuan Auto Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 225/2013 dated 30.04.2013 iv. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Supertech Diamond Tools (P.) Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 460 (Rajasthan) v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 204 (Allahabad) vi. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 444 vii. ITA 298/2012 Dated: 16.05.2012 in the case of Dalmia Bros Pvt. Ltd. viii. ITA 212/2012 Dated: 11.04.2012 in the case of CIT Vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. ix. ITA 284/2012 Dated: 27.04.2012 in the case of CIT vs. Ceylon Biscuits India (P) Ltd. x. ITA 232/2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Garner Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd. and submissions made before the ld. CIT (Appeals). 3.2 The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that information was received from Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee had received accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- from some named companies, hence there was specific information to form reasons to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer to proceed for initiation of reopening proceedings. Since the proceedings were initiated after expiry of four years, approval was taken from the competent authority. Summons issued to the parties were not responded, hence the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition in question. He submitted further that original return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, hence, there was no question of change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer while initiating the reopening proceedings. 3.3 When we go through the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer, reproduced hereunder, we concur with the contention of the ld. AR that it is vague ....