TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only on 05/04/2017 so impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A are void ab initio being passed on basis of time barred notice uls 148 of the Act. 3. That order passed by LdAO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed by ld CIT A dated 20/11/2018 are bad in law in as much as notice uls 148 dated 31/03/2017 is based on mechanical reasons to believe which are based on suspect only and for purpose of making roving and fishing enquiries ergo impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A are void ab initio being passed on basis of invalid reasons recorded. 4. That order passed by Ld AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed by ld CIT A dated 20/11/2018 are bad in law in as much as notice U/S 148 dated 31/03/2017 is based on mechanical approval of PCIT 23 New Delhi merely endorsing the ritualistic words 'yes I am satisfied" which makes the impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A as void ab initio being passed on basis of invalid approval of PCIT- 23 New Delhi. Merits of the case 5. That Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the I.T. Act:- 1. Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) 29018) 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi). i) Where Congress Party gave loan to AJL and assigned said loan to non-profit YI which subsequently issued shares to assesses at a price less than FMV, nondisclosure by assesses of allotment of shares in YI would be a reason to initiate reassessment proceedings. ii) Relying on PCIT vs. Meenakshi 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication money from several entities which were only engaged in business of providing bogus accommodation entries to beneficiary concerns, reassessment on basis of said information was justified. 11. Rakesh Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court f20181 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) Where Assessing Officer received information from Principle Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that assessee 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accommodation entry of bogus long-term capital gain. The reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs and, therefore, the same is not being reproduced here to avoid repetition. However, a perusal of the column No.12 and 13 of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and for obtaining the approval of the Addl./Joint CIT, copy of which is placed at page 40 of the paper book, reveals that the JCIT while giving his approval has mentioned as under:- "Recommended for approval u/s 147 of the Act." 19. Similarly, the Pr. CIT, while giving his approval has mentioned as under:- "Yes. I am satisfied." 20. I find the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding an identical issue has quashed the reassessment proceedings where the approving authorities while giving approval has simply mentioned "Yes. I am satisfied." The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 10 onwards read as under:- "10. First of all, ld. AR for the assessee company drew our attention towards sanction accorded by the Addl.CIT for reopening of the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as to according the sanction for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by merely recording "Yes. I am satisfied." And held that reopening on the basis of mechanical sanction is invalid by returning following findings :- " Section 151, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under. section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Search and Seizure-Procedure for black Assessment- Search was conducted at residential and business premises of Assessee and notice for block assessment u/s. 158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded-Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and CO No.57/Del/2012 147- CIT(A) found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion- Mere appending of expression 'approved' says nothing-It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up-At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could be reflected in briefest possible manner- In present case, exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer- Revenue's appeal dismissed." 16. Furthermore, perusal of the noting sheet dated 09.03.2010 to 30.12.2010 made available to the Bench for perusal shows that only AO has recorded that Addl.CIT has considered the reasons recorded before according the sanction, however even no prima facie material is there, if Addl.CIT has applied his mind by considering the reasons recorded before according the sanction. We are of the considered view that the AO who has recorded the reasons cannot enter into the mind of the sanctioning authority (Addl.CIT) discharging the quasi-judicial function for according valid sanction for reopening the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion. No attempt should be made to add to the reasons for reopening of the assessment beyond what has already been disclosed." 17. In view of what has been discussed above, reassessment opened by the AO in this case is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence hereby quashed. Consequently, cross objection filed by the assessee company stands allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. 21. I find the Tribunal in the case of Raghav Technology Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding an identical issue has also quashed the reassessment proceedings under similar circumstances by observing as under:- "8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the case of the assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons and issue of notice u/s 148 as per the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry obtained from Surendra Kumar Jain group of cases towards introduction of share capital of Rs. 35 lacs. I find, the assessee has taken a sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking official, the finding of the Tribunal quashing the reassessment proceedings cannot be disturbed. 12. I find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors (supra) has held that where the commissioner had mechanically recorded permission and the important safeguards provided in the section 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the officer and the commissioner, the notice issued u/s 148 was held as invalid. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the paper book also support his case. Since, in the instant case, admittedly, the ld. PCIT while granting approval has simply mentioned 'Yes. I am satisfied' therefore, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court (cited supra) on this issue which are binding on the Tribunal, the reassessment proceedings are to be treated as not in accordance with the law since the approval has been given in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by the approving authority. I, therefore, allow ground of appeal No.2 by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee succeeds o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to it. In the first part, the AO has reproduced the precise information he has received from the Investigation Wing of the Revenue. This information is in the form of details of the amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material. 20. Coming to the second part, this tells us what the AO did with the information so received. He says: "The information so received has been gone through." One would have expected him to point out what he found when he went through the information. In other words, what in such information led him to form the belief that income escaped assessment. But this is absent. He straightaway records the conclusion that "the abovesaid instruments are in the nature of accommodation entry which the Assessee had taken after paying unaccounted cash to the accommodation entry given (sic giver)". The AO adds that the said accommodation was "a known entry operator" the source being "the report of the Investigation Wing". 21. The third and last part contains the conclusion drawn by the AO that in view of these facts, "the alleged transaction is not the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation provided by the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind. It was held that there was no tangible material which formed the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment. The various other decisions relied by the ld. counsel also supports his case. Since, in the instant case, the reopening of the assessment has been made on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and such reopening is made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, therefore, such reopening is not in accordance with law and ha to be quashed. Accordingly, such reassessment proceedings have to be treated as not in accordance with law and has to be quashed. 26. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, the addition on merit is not being adjudicated being academic in nature. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. ITA Nos. 1375/Del/2019 (Gopal Chand Mundhra and Sons); 1721/Del/2019 (Damyanti Mundhra); 1722/Del/2019 (Ramdev Mundhra); 1524/Del/2019 (Gopal Chand Mundhra). 27. In these appeals also identical gro....