TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic objection was raised during the course of assessment proceedings and the same has not even not rebutted by the AO during assessment proceedings and this fact has even been admitted by him in the remand report. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) despite the fact that no specific defect in the books of account produced during the course of assessment proceedings, has been noticed/pointed out by the AO. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in rejecting the specific request of the assessee to provide the copies of the statements recorded by the department of Sh. Deepak Nimesh & Others at the back of the assessee and to allow an opportunity to cross examine them, despite the fact that the AO relied on his statement to make uncalled for addition . The action of the CIT(A) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 281 CTR 241. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law while directing the AO to assess the work contract receipts amounting to Rs. 15,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and Singhad technical Education Society reported in 397 ITR 344." 4. The AR of the assessee submitted that this is a legal ground requiring no fresh investigation of facts and therefore, can be admitted by the Tribunal and for this he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383 and Singhad Technical Education Society reported in 397 ITR 344. 5. The DR has not objected to the admission of the above additional grounds of appeal. Therefore, they were admitted and the parties were al lowed to make their submissions thereon. 6. The AR of the assessee submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2015 on the f irm M/s Ambey Construction Company. He pointed out from page no. 1 of the paper book f i led by the assessee where notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.02.2015 is placed. He submitted that the notice has been issued on the firm M/s Ambey Construction Company whose PAN No. is AAKCA0933H. He submitted that the assessee f irm was dissolved on 31.12.2011. He submitted that this is evident ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ages Credit & Portfol io (P) Ltd., ITA Nos. 5301 - 5306, 5418- 5423/Del/2013 dated 19.12.2014, ITAT Delhi • I. K. Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [(2012) 347 ITR 0664] (Cal.) • Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. DCIT & Ors., (2016) 382 ITR 0443 (Del.) • CIT vs. Vived Marketing Servicing (P). Ltd., ITA No. 273/2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.) • CIT vs. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 0288 (Del.) • Impsat (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2004) 91 ITD 0354, ITAT Delhi • Modi Crop. Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 0303, ITAT Delhi • Pampasar Disti l lery Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2007) 15 SOT 0331, ITAT Kolkata • Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No. 1029/Del/2013 dated 23.08.2013, ITAT Delhi • M/s Computer Engineering Services India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 5874-5878/del/2013 dated 29.05.2015, ITAT Delhi • M/s Anujay ITycare Products Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, ITA No. 4411/Del/2017 dated 06.04.2018, ITAT Delhi • Shri Ishwarbhai Maganbhai Desai vs. ITO, ITA No 90/Ahd/2017 dated 23/04/2018, ITAT Ahmedabad 7. It was submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA No. 2212/2015, order dated 25.04.2017, ITAT Delhi • S. Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No 6544/2014, order dated 29.04.2016, ITAT Delhi • Suresh Chandra Vs ITO in ITA No 3061/2012, order dated 13.03.2015, ITAT Delhi 9. The AR of the assessee further argued and submitted that the reasons for reopening of assessment are not valid reasons. He submitted that the Assessing off icer assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act based on the reason recorded which would show that there was no independent appl ication of mind and there was no bel ief of escaped income which could have been formed. It was submitted that reasons are divided into f ive unnumbered paragraphs. First paragraph speaks of report of Investigation Wing which speaks about search at PACL group and the finding of search and merely says about the amount paid by PACL to the appel lant. Second paragraph of the reason recorded speaks about survey conducted on the premises of the appel lant and does not say anything about the impugned amount received from PACL to be in the nature of appel lant's income. Further, in paragraph nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the reason speak of the expenditure incurred by the appel l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in pursuance to which impugned order of reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 14.03.2016. 13. The legal contention of the assessee are that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.02.2015 was issued in the name of assessee f irm which was not in existence on the date of issuance of notice. Further, it contended that objection fi led by the assessee f irm on 08.03.2016 against issuance of notice u/s 148 was not disposed off by passing a separate order before passing of impugned order of assessment. Lastly, he also contended that the reasons recorded in the instant case are not a reason to bel ief as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act and therefore, assumption of jurisdiction on 13.02.2015 was bad in law. For al l the above reasons, the impugned order of reassessment is unsustainable. 14. We find that reasons which were recorded in the instant case before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act are as under: "In this case, an information was received from the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.)-l, Gurgaon that M/s Ambey Construction Co. had received Rs. 30 crores from M/s PACL for developing of land in the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of land. From the above discussion, it is clear that the above noted company has received an amount of Rs. 15 crores from the PACL whereas from the enquiries, it was emerged that the assessee was not able to justify the work done for the company of PACL Ltd. The assessee has taken this amount in its gross receipt for the A.Y. 2011-12 and after claiming the huge business expenses, the assessee has shown net profit of Rs. 1,66,07,805/- against the total receipt of Rs. 44,72,75,966/- @ 3.71% whereas the amount under consideration of Rs. 15 crores is required to be assessed under the head ' income from other source' as the assessee f irm is not entitled to al low the business expenses as claimed this amount as the same is not received by the f irm against the any execution of any work done of the PACL as discussed above. In the l ight of the above, I have reasons to bel ieve that the assessee company has escaped assessment an amount of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly al l material facts necessary for his assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 is to be issued to reassess the income which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as recorded only his conclusion after conclusions in the recordings and has not recorded any cogent and relevant reason and material for the same. From the reading of the above, it could not be understood how and why the AO concluded that assessee was not aware of the land which was stated to be developed on behalf of PACL and even not aware of the nature of land. It states that the above conclusion was drawn on the bases of the answers given by Shri. Puneet Garg and Shri. Harwinder Pal Singla, Directors of the company to the questions posed to them at the time of recording their statement during the course of survey. However, the relevant questions and answers were not quoted in the recordings made nor those statements formed part of the recordings made. 17. Simi larly, a further conclusion was drawn by the AO that from the enquiries, it was emerged that the assessee was not able to justify the work done for the company of PACL Ltd. However, the detai ls of enquiries on the basis of which the above conclusion was drawn is not recorded. 18. From a reading of the above entire recordings, it seems that the opinion of the AO was that though Rs. 15 crores was received by the asse....