TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed original return of income on 30.03.2006. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2012, the reason for reopening the case was that a search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its group concerns/associated persons. The assessee is one of the associated/group companies of Today group. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, it was noticed that the assessee was one of the co-owner of the property at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi, holding share of 28.24% and the said property was used by Gambhir brothers for their residence and was not being used by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why 28.24% of the annual value of property at Rs. 41,69,718/- should not be added to the income of the assessee as income from house property. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 14.03.2013 submitted that out of 3860 Sq, yards only 1350 Sq. yards was let out by two companies and 2510 Sq. yards was used for their own business purpose by all the four ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The AO has to act on the basis of reason to believe and not on reason to suspect. Ld. AO in fact failed to appreciate the facts of the case and even failed to look into the ITR before him, therefore the issuance of notice U/s 148 for reassessment proceedings was not valid. Since the reasons on which Ld. AO has formed his belief is totally wrong and void-ab-initio, therefore the notice U/s 148 is not valid in law and needs to be quashed. We rely on following judgements; - MOHINDER SINGH MALIK 267 ITR 716 (P&H). MADHUKAR KHOSLA VS. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (DEL) CIT VS. SMT. PRAMJ1T KAUR 205 TAXATION515 (P & H.) SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD. 329 ITR 110 (DEL) CIT VS. (1) ATUL JAIN (2) SMT. VINITA JAIN 299 ITR 383 (DEL) SECOND, that as per para 2 of the reasons supplied to us is that, "The brief facts are that search and seizure action was carried out at various premises of Today group and its associate concerns and persons on 26.11.2009 and was finally concluded on 25.01.2010-- " However in this regard it is to be slated that the search action look place in FY 2009-10 on Today Group. The complete facts had been noticed by Ld. AO duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of the assessee observed that there was no illegality in using the evidence collected during the search of third persons for making assessment u/s 147 of the Act and that the assessee had not spelt out any illegality in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act had been assumed after recording the reason and taking approval as required under the provision of the Act for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that for the year under consideration, the property in question was in possession of the assessee and that the rent received from the let out portion was already disclosed and offered for taxation by the assessee. A reference was made to page nos. 11 & 12 of the assessee's paper book which is the copy of computation of income and acknowledgment of the receipt of Income Tax Return respectively. It was stated that how the let out value was determined by the AO at Rs. 41,69,718/- was not clear and no working was provided by the AO. It was further stated that the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessment proceedings for the AY 2009-10, it was seen that the assessee is one of the co-owner of the property at 48 Friends Colony East, New Delhi along with other group concerns namely M/s Takshila Distributors Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Mission Viejo Agro Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rancho Place Estate Pvt. Ltd. The assessee owns 28.24% of the share in the property at 48 Friends Colony East. New Delhi and this property of the assessee company at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi. Further it was noticed that this property was being used by Gambhirs for their residence and was not being used by the assessee as well as the other group concerns for the purpose of their own business or profession, therefore, as per the provision of section 23 of the Act, the sum for which the whole of property at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi, might reasonably be expected to be let out was determined at Rs. 41,69,718/-. 2.1 During the FY 2004-05 also the property of the assessee at 48 Friends Colony East, New Delhi was being used by Gambhirs for their residence and not by the assessee company for the purpose of its .own business or profession therefore as per the provision of section 23 of the Act, the sum for ....