Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2020 (1) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant regarding illegal assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. by passing a speaking order should therefore be set aside and quashed. 3. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO and passing the impugned order by obtaining behind the back of the appellant some alleged statements /information none of which had been made available to the appellant nor any opportunity provided to rebut the same and there was not even a show cause notice specifically proposing to make any addition nor any effective opportunity of hearing and hence, the impugned order passed in violation of natural justice is liable to be quashed. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in not being guided by correct factual and legal position, records, and binding precedents placed before him and has passed the impugned order erroneously which is therefore liable to set aside and quashed. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have dealt with all the submissions and objections of the appellant and ought to have followed the binding decisions of the Courts and Tribunals placed before him but has unfortunately not done so and has thus passed the impugned order erroneously which is liable to be vacated in this appeal. 6. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thiness of the share application money received during the relevant assessment year was not proved by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.3.2016, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 09.11.2017 has affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. During the hearing, ld. Counsel of the assessee has only argued legal ground no. 1 and stated the reassessment as made is without jurisdiction, without compliance with mandatory provisions of section 147/148 of the Act and as such the same deserves to be quashed. He further stated that the reasons recorded for the reassessment are at pager book page no.13-14 and the reasons are bald and do not contain even the prima facie view or reason to believe of the AO that income has escaped assessment to tax within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. There is no application of mind by the AO and no process of the matter by the AO before recording of the said reasons. It was further submitted that notice under section 148 was issued merely on the basis of information from DI, Jhandewalan, New Delhi that assessee has received accommodation entry of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 651/Del/2016 dated 11.1.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) approval u/s. 151 upheld. 2. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 341 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 2.1 Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped income, will not debar the AO from exercising his jurisdiction to assess the assessee on reopening notice.. 4. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court T20141 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had received bogus loss from his broker by client code modification, reassessment on basis of said information was justified. 12. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC). SLP dismissed against High Court's order that non-compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2002) 125 Taxman 963 that on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, Assessing Officer is bound to dispose objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment order void ab initio. 13. Baldevbahi Bhikhabhai Patel vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) (2018) 94 Taxmann.co, 428(Gujarat) Where revenue produced bunch of documents to suggest that entire proposal of reopening of assessment alongwith reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for same were placed before Additional Commissioner who, upon perusal of same, recorded his satisfaction that it was a fit case for issuance of notice for reopening assessment, reassessment notice issued against assessee was justified." 6. I have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. I note that in this case the AO while recording the reasons for the be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore vague, highly non specific and reflect complete non-application of mind. It is also noted that there is no live link or direct nexus between alleged material and, inference. It is further noted that initiation of proceedings is also based on non application of mind much less independent application of mind but is a case of borrowed satisfaction. Nothing is independently examined or considered by the AO which can demonstrate application of mind by him. There is nothing to show that the cash is paid from coffers of the assessee. Reasons do no indicate as to who AO reached to the conclusion that the assessee received accommodation entry and escaped assessment. To support my aforesaid view, I draw support from the following decisions:- i)ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2011) 198 taxman 202 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that : "Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Whether opinion of District Valuation Officer (DVO) per se is not an information for purposes of reopening of an assessment under section 147; Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to information, if any, collected and must form a bel....