TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 143(3) vide Order Dated 19.03.2015. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT considering the assessment order dated 19.03.2015 to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, it is noted in the impugned order that assessment was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act on the allegation of accommodation entry taken from S.K. Jain group of cases who were searched on 14.09.2010 by Investigation Wing of the Department, some of the Assessing Officers did not examine the seized material in the form of cash book and book containing the details of cheques issued by such concern seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report dated 12.03.2013 which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized material was scanned and sent to CIT in soft copy. However, while completing the reassessment though the A.O. referred the appraisal report but did not look into the relevant seized material in soft copy. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the re-assessment order be not revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee objected to the same and submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2008-2009 relevant to the Assessment. Year 2009- 10 has taken accommodation entries of Rs. 55,00,000/- from the persons/parties (termed as entry operators). These entries have been investigated by the Investigation Wing and found to be given as accommodation entries from the entities operated and controlled by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain. The details of which are mentioned below : Beneficiary's Name Amount (Rs.) Entry Provider Cheque/ RTGS/ P.O.No. Dated M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 15,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 230831 UTI Bank 23.04.2008 M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 230845 Axis Bank 26.04.2008 M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 248523 Axis Bank 27.05.2008 I have very carefully considered the aforesaid piece of information and the modus operandi of the entry operator Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and its controlled entities. I find that the quantum of amount of such entries received by the assessee company M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order for A.Y. 2009-2010 of the Investor is also filed in the paper book under section 153C/ 153A dated 28.03.2013. He has, therefore, submitted that A.O. after due enquiry accepted the returned income vide re-assessment order dated 19.03.2015. He has submitted that even thereafter A.O. recorded fresh reasons for reopening of the assessment dated 23.03.2016 and copy of the reasons have been supplied to assessee vide letter dated 12.05.2016 (PB-178) and on the same reasoning A.O. again reopened the assessment under sections 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act. It may noted here that the Ld. CIT-D.R. produced the assessment record, according to which, the A.O. recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment on 23.03.2016 which is approved by Ld. Pr. CIT on 30.03.2016. However, the A.O. dropped the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act vide Order dated 05.12.2016. Copy of the reasons and Order have been placed on record by the Ld. CIT-D.R. Order of the A.O. dated 05.12.2016 dropping the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act for the second time are reproduced as under : "05.12.2016 : Mr. Munish Gupta, A.R. of the assessee attended. Since the case for A.Y. 2009- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Indore) (TM). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that A.O. cannot ask for examination of source of the source. Detailed reply were filed before A.O. at re-assessment proceedings to prove that assessee entered into genuine transaction. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT should not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that ITAT, Delhi G-Bench in the group case of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi & Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi in ITA.No.2269 & 2857/Del./2017 vide Order dated 10.12.2018 has quashed the Orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Copy of the Order is placed on record. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the impugned order and submitted that dropping of the proceedings does not amount to order. Therefore, it cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that A.O. has not considered the seized material found from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Ld. D.R. also filed written submissions in which he has reiterated the same submissions which were reiterated in the group cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This Order shall dispose of all the appeals filed by different Assessees challenging the Orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since issue is common in all the appeals, therefore, all appeals were heard together and are decided through this common consolidated Order. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 - M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 3. The facts of the case are that original return of Income in this case was filed on 20.10.2007 at NIL income. The notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 25.03.2014 after recording the reasons and taking prior approval from the competent authorities. The assessee in response to the statutory notice vide letter dated 10.04.2014 submitting therein that the original return filed may please be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and also requested to provide reasons recorded, which were duly provided to it. The assessee also filled its objections which were disposed off. The A.O. issued statutory notice whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is mentioned in the Order. It is noted in the notice under section 263 that the amounts received by assessee-company were accommodation entry in lieu of cash given by the assessee-company through Shri Manoj Bansal. The relevant copies of the seized material relating to the assessee-company were given along with show cause notice or during the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee-company submitted that the A.O. has considered the seized material not only at the time of re-assessment but also at the time of recording reasons for re-assessment. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the A.O. wherein there is a mention of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri S.K. Jain who had floated hundreds of bogus companies to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. 3.2. The assessee-company also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assesseecompany was asked to furnish income tax returns, confirmations, financials and bank statements, which were duly complied with by the assessee-company. The assessee-company has proved the creditworthiness of the Investors before A.O. Independent n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he scanned copy of the seized material. Against these entries, the name of assessee-company and the name of Shri Manoj Bansal (Mediator) is mentioned. All the cheques were found to be credited in the bank account of the assessee-company. Several scanned copies are attached from pages 9 to 19 of the impugned order. From pages 20 to 26 of the impugned order, summary of the appraisal report, year-wise details of accommodation entries provided by Shri S.K. Jain group to various beneficiary companies were tabulated for the charge of CIT-8. The A.O. has made mentioned details/table as the basis for reopening of the assessment which is clear from the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. From the entry No.230, the name of the assessee-company an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs have been mentioned. It would shows that A.O. did not verify or examine the seized material relating to the assessee. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that as there is no statutory notice under section 143(2) prescribed in the Act and only non-statutory notice is prescribed, the purpose of which is to intimate the assessee that the case has been selected for scrutiny and the notices issued on date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....views as per law. Therefore, the re-assessment order cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. There is a difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. PB-11 is reasons recorded under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act in which it is mentioned that information/documents in the form of CD, appraisal report along with relevant details has been received from the O/o. CIT-III, New Delhi, Dated 28.03.2013 that the assessee has received and is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain, Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain. The accommodation entries have been provided to various assessees who were re-routing their unaccounted cash through these accommodation entries. Therefore, all the relevant details were before A.O. at the time of reopening of the assessment. PB-17 to 24 are the information called by the A.O. from all Investor Companies under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act at re-assessment stage. PB-25 is objections filed by assessee for reopening of the assessment under section 148. PB 26-27 is queries raised by the A.O. at reassessment stage along with documents of Investor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tten more elaborately." Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) in which it was held that "the A.O. is both Investigator and Adjudicator. If the A.O. fails to conduct enquiry, he commits error and the word 'erroneous' includes failure to make the enquiry. In cases, where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the Order/Inquiry made is erroneous. An Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous." Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that "once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act." The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT-DEL in which the Tribunal noted that "assessee-company has raised the issue of no notice has been issued under section 143(2) or served upon assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that assessee has neither challenged this issue after passing of the reassessment order nor has raised this issue before Pr. CIT during the course of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has raised several legal issues/objections before Pr. CIT challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Even before the Tribunal at the time of filing of the appeal, this issue has neither been raised in the grounds nor has any additional ground been raised so that Department could have got the opportunity to object or respond to such a plea after verifying the record in this regard. Therefore, request of Counsel for Assessee was rejected. It is also noted that the impugned order demonstrated that the issue was neither enquired into nor was verified by the A.O." The Ld. D.R. similarly relied upon decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Surya Financial Services Ltd., vs. PCIT vide ITA.No.2915/Del./2017, Dated 08.01.2018 reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al return filed may be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act and requested for copy of the reasons which were supplied and objections of the assessee have been disposed of separately. The A.O. in the re-assessment order did not mention if he has issued any notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act upon assessee before completion of the assessment. This issue was raised before Ld. Pr. CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act that A.O. has not issued notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act at re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. Pr. CIT mentioned in the impugned order that assessee was intimated by notices dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 that in the absence of requisite details assessment would be completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT treated the same notices as notice issued under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, admitted that no formal notice under section 143(2) have been issued to the assessee before completion of the re-assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 43 (Del.) held as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid reassessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, set aside the Order of Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In view of the above, the remaining plea of the assessee are not required to be adjudicated. However, we may briefly note that A.O. examined entire seized material at the time of recording reasons and reassessment stage. The assessee produced sufficient evidences at the re-assessment proceedings to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The A.O. also made direct enquiry by issuing summons under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to the Investors who have also replied directly to the A.O. Therefore, A.O. rightly accepted the credits as genuine. In view of the above finding, there is no need to give a finding in detail on merits. In view of the above, we allow the appeal of assessee. 7. In the result, ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on account of commission expenses for taking accommodation entries. The re-assessment order under sections 144/148 Dated 18.03.2015 was passed accordingly. 10. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the aforesaid reassessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and noted that Investigation Wing has forwarded hard copy of appraisal report to show that assessee received accommodation entries. However, A.O. has taken it at Rs. 10 lakhs only as against Rs. 1 crore. Show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act was issued stating therein that assessee has received Rs. 50 lakhs each as accommodation entries from Hillridge Investments Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Private Limited. Explanation of assessee was called for because the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the A.O. has not examined the seized material and has failed to tax the amount of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained credit in the books of account of the assessee. The assessee filed reply in which it was briefly explained that the A.O. in the reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded that there is escapement of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Pr. CIT rightly considered re-assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is well settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is to be judged with reference to the reasons recorded under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act. In the present case, A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment on 25.03.2014, copy of which is filed at page-1 of paper book. Same reads as under : "Reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. SPJ Hotels (PV Limited, PAN AAKCS7722C for the A.Y. 2007-08 - Reg. 25.03.2014 : Information about entry operators and their beneficiaries of Delhi has been received from the office of the DIT .(Inv.)-II, New Delhi vide letter F. No. DlT(Inv)- 148/2011-12/7539 dated 21,03.2012 and F. No. DIT (Inv)- II/U/s 148/ 2012-13/196 dated 12.03.2013 along with detailed report giving working of entry operators with a list of beneficiaries. After making inquiries, the Addl. Directorate of Income Tax, Unit - VI of Investigation, in his report has established large amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y assessment has been done in this case for the A.Y. 2007-08, approval from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, New Delhi has been obtained vide letter dated 25.03.2014 to issue notice u/s.148, as per the provisions of Section 151(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore issue notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Sd/-Virender Kumar Rathee ITO, Ward 9(2), New Delhi." 13.1. In the aforesaid reasons for reopening of the assessment, it is mentioned that assessee company received share capital on account of accommodation entries of Rs. 5 lakhs each from M/s. Hillridge Investment Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., based on information and seized material received from Investigation Wing. However, the assessee explained before A.O. that amount in question is Rs. 20 lakhs from four parties. The A.O. in the reassessment order made addition of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of unexplained credit on account of accommodation entries received from four parties and also made addition of Rs. 40,000/- on account of Commission paid to entry operators. On the basis of the same material, the Pr. CIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act on the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Following the reasons for decision in the case of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (supra), we set aside the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. 14. In the result, ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA.No.2527/Del./2017 - M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 15. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi, Dated 24.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2007-2008 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 16. The facts of the case are that notice under section 148, dated 28.03.2014 was issued to the assessee after recording the reasons and obtaining approval of CIT-3, New Delhi. In compliance to the notice under section 148, the assessee has furnished return on 01.05.2014. The assessee stated before A.O. that the income declared in the ITR under section 148 remain the same as declared in the original return of income filed under section 139 of the I.T. Act Dated 30.10.2007. It was further stated that income of Rs. 33,79,596/- as declared in the return of income under section 139 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee and noted that seized documents recovered during the course of search in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group of cases have not been examined and considered by the A.O. while framing the re-assessment order. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that verification of the seized documents shows the amount in question is Rs. 2.20 crores but as per the details given in the notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the amount is mentioned as Rs. 2.90 crores. The contention of the assessee that the seized material did not belong to the assessee was rejected. The re-assessment order was set aside and restored to the A.O. for passing the order afresh as per law. 18. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the Order under section 263 of the IT. Act. The assessee also moved an application for admission of the following additional ground. "That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT ought not to have revised reassessment order under section 147/143(3) as the said re-assessment order was void and bad in law due to illegal assumption of jurisdiction." 18.1. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that additional ground is legal in na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned instead of Rs. 2.20 crores. PB-60 is notice under section 148 Dated 28.03.2014. PB-57 is original assessment order under section 143(3) Dated 27.11.2009. He has, therefore, submitted that reassessment done after four years and in the reasons as well as in the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. has not mentioned anything if there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts at every stage for the purpose of assessment and re-assessment. The assessee declared share application money received from two parties. However, in the reasons name of none of parties have been mentioned. In the original assessment proceedings an amount of Rs. 2.20 crores have been mentioned. Therefore, in the reasons the facts have been wrongly mentioned. All the facts available on record were considered in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, no new material has been brought on record for reopening of the assessment. All incorrect and non-existing facts have been mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The amount in question is also wrongly mentioned in the reasons. In the books of account of assessee, assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, reassessment is illegal and bad in law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 99-CCH-28-Del.-HC, Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del.). He has submitted that there is no approval for reopening of the assessment by the Competent Authority. He has submitted that all the seized papers were considered by the A.O, therefore, reopening of the assessment was bad in law, illegal and as such Ld. Pr. CIT should not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 21. On the other hand, Learned D.R. reiterated the submissions made in the case of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. in ITA.No.2269/Del./ 2017 hereinabove. The Learned D.R. submitted that seized material was not considered by the A.O. Summons under section 131 were not complied with. All material facts were not disclosed. A.O. took the figure of Rs. 2.90 crores in the reasons based on information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT correctly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent because the amount in question is Rs. 2.20 crores but A.O. has mentioned in the reasons the amount of Rs. 2.90 crores which escaped assessment. Further, no names of the parties have been mentioned in reasons under section 147 from whom the amount in question have been received by the assessee as accommodation entry. All the facts brought to the notice of the A.O. by the Investigation Wing have been considered by the A.O. while framing the re-assessment and accepted the return of income. Therefore, there was no new material available on record to justify reopening of the assessment or to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act, which would also show that there is totally non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. to reopen the assessment in the matter. These facts are sufficient to hold that reopening of the assessment was bad in law, illegal and non-est, therefore, such order could not be revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jain group of concerns and all the seized documents have not been verified by the A.O. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee seeking explanation of credit entry of Rs. 1 crores received from Shalini Holdings Ltd. The assessee filed detailed reply which is reproduced in the impugned order in which the assessee submitted that complete details were filed before A.O. and receipt of share capital money supported by the documents and confirmations. Therefore, re-assessment order is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT noted the submissions of the assessee wherein the shares were originally issued to Shalini Holdings Ltd on 25.08.2008 were transferred on 25.03.2010 in favour of Frank Merchantile Private Limited. Seized documents are reproduced in the impugned order. The Ld. Pr. CIT noted that as against the entry in the name of assessee, an amount of Rs. 2 crores have been mentioned. However, on verification of the seized material, it was found that total amount of Rs. 1 crore as per details given in the show cause notice is there and not Rs. 2 crores. It would show that A.O. did not verify and examine the seized material relating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings and that such ground cannot be taken in the present appeal. 29. Similar issue was considered by us in the above group of appeal in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (supra) and additional ground have been admitted. Following the reasons for decision of the same, we admit the additional grounds of appeal for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. 30. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that no notice under section 143(2) have been issued in the case of assessee. Copy of the order sheet of the A.O. is filed at page 279 of the paper book to show that no notice under section 143(2) have been issued. He has referred to PB-20 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment in which A.O. has mentioned wrong facts of taking accommodation entry of Rs. 2 crores. However, assessee has received share capital/premium of Rs. 1 crore only in assessment year under appeal. No name of the person from whom assessee received Rs. 2 crores have been mentioned in the reasons. The show cause notice under section 263 have been issued for a lesser amount of Rs. 1 crore. If reasons were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ltd., and M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (supra), set aside the impugned Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 33. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 34. To sum-up, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed." 9. In this case, after considering the submissions of both the parties and material on record, it was held that reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act because only valid re-assessment order can be revised. It was also found that in this case A.O. conducted the enquiries before passing the re-assessment order and on the basis of material on record, A.O. has correctly accepted the transaction to be genuine. It is not in dispute that earlier A.O. reopened the assessment by recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment under section 148 dated 29.03.2014. The reasons are reproduced above. In the said reasons, the A.O. has referred to the letter of DIT dated 21.03.2012, Investigation Report dated 12.03.2013. It is, therefore, recorded in the reasons for reopening of the assessment that assessee receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd Member in para-22 of the Order is reproduced as under : "22. In the present case also, the Assessing Officer made inquiry and the assessee replied to each and every query of the Assessing Officer both in the original proceedings as well as in the re-assessment proceedings and arrived at a conclusion for re-opening proceedings and dropping the proceedings after the due consideration of reply and facts submitted by the assessee. Here also the CIT has not given any finding that the cash credits were not genuine and that interest paid by them was not allowable as deduction. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, CIT(A) was not justified in invoking provisions of section 263 for revising the order of dropping of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, of the Assessing Officer, which as aforesaid, were dropped by the Assessing Officer after due and proper inquiries. The order of the CIT(A) on merits, is therefore, not sustainable, and accordingly requires to be vacated." 9.2. It would, therefore, prove that dropping of the proceedings under section 148 was held to be valid Order revisable under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the contention ....