TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 147/148 of the Act in view of first proviso to section 147. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the instant reopening made by the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147/148 of the Act for non existence of statutorily required "reasons to believe". 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the instant reopening made by the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147/148 of the Act, being made for change of opinion and review held impressible by SC in Kelvinator 320 ITR 561. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the instant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grievance of the assessee vide Ground Nos. 1 to 4 relates to the reopening of the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of shares and stock and filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 showing a total income of Rs. 27,150/-. The AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act on 16.12.2005 assessing the total income at Rs. 58,450/-. Thereafter the AO again issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2009 by recording the following reasons: "In this case return was filed on 31.10.2002 declaring income of Rs. 27,146/-. Return was assessed u/s 143(3) on 16.12.2005. The Dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as drawn towards page no. 3 of the assessee's paper book. It was submitted that the debit balance in the account of M/s R. K. Investments cannot be an escaped income of the assessee, therefore, the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case was not valid. It was further stated that the AO reopened the assessment for the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and after proper verification framed the assessment u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act by passing the re-assessment order dated 16.12.2005. The AO again reopened the same assessment on the basis of flimsy ground by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2009, so the reopening of the assessment was not valid. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (supra) has held as under: "That the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax( Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs during financial year 2002-03 as stated in the annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established ne....