TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has filed its reply vide letter dated 03/12/2013 wherein the assessee has mentioned the date of notice u/s.148 of I.T. Act, 1961 as 27/08/2013. The copy of the original reply was also produced before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has received the notice u/s.148 of I.T. Act, 1961 on 30/08/2013 i.e. after recording the reasons of reopening on 27/08/2013. Hence, the assessee's stand that the AO has failed to record the reasons before issue of notice u/s.148 does not hold ground. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO has mentioned 148 notice dated 27.08.2013 in the assessment order as well as in the rectification order. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in not appreciating the provisions of section 292B of Income-tax Act, 1961 while allowing the assessee's appeal. As evident, the revenue is aggrieved by quashing of reassessment proceedings on legal grounds. 2. We have carefully considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bogus purchases brought into books to inflate the purchase thereby reducing the profits earned by the assessee. Therefore, these purchases were treated as non-genuine and added to the income of the assessee. 4.1 Before Ld. CIT(A), besides challenging quantum additions, the assessee took a legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The assessee, inter-alia, raised additional ground wherein it was asserted that recording of reasons for reopening before issuance of notice u/s 148 was mandatory requirement and a prerequisite to the assumption of jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee. Therefore, reassessment order was liable to be cancelled for want of compliance with mandatory provisions of Sec.148(2) of the Act. Since the legal ground challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the same at the threshold. 4.2 The assessee, in the context of additional ground, submitted that notice u/s 148 was dated 21/08/2013 whereas reasons were recorded on 27/08/2013 which run contrary to Section 148(2) of the Act. The provisions would read as under: - (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee's reply dated 03/12/2013 were enclosed. 4.4 The assessee confronted the remand report vide submissions dated 02/10/2017, the relevant contents of which have already been reproduced in para-9 of the impugned order. The assessee maintained that the order was passed without assuming proper jurisdiction and therefore the order was liable to be quashed. 4.5 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material on record, concurred with assessee's submissions by observing as under: - 10. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, oral contentions and written submissions of the Ld. AR of the appellant and submission of the AO in the remand report and material available on record, it is seen that the additional ground raised by the appellant is purely a legal issue, and the appellant has also contended it to be so. The AO in the remand report has though objected to raising such issue at the appellate stage, however, his objection cannot be sustained in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd, v/s. CIT. 229 ITR 383. Accordingly the additional ground raised is admitted for decision. 11. In this case two facts are not disputed either by the AO o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he remand report has mentioned that in response to the notice issued, the assessee has filed its reply vide letter dated 03.12.2013, wherein the assessee has mentioned the date of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act as 27.08.2013. In this regard it is observed that the letter dated 03/12/2013 has been written by one Mr. Chetan Jain C. A. which is typed letter on his letter head but for the dates which have been hand written. The date of the letter of Shri Chetan Jain is 03.12.2013 and date of notice u/s 148 referred there in on the copy submitted by the AO appears to be 27.08.2013. However the copy of same letter submitted by the appellant clearly shows the date as 21.08.2013. Copy of letter of Shri Chetan Jain C. A. submitted by the appellant is marked and annexed as Annexure 3 of this order forming part of the order. Further copy of letter of Shri Chetan Jain C. A. submitted by the AO is marked and annexed as Annexure 4 of this order forming part of the order. Further, the appellant has submitted copy of an order passed u/s 154 by the AO in the case of the appellant for A. Y. 2010-11 on 10.04.2017, where the questioned facts are pari material same. Incidentally this order u/s 154 has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een that there is clear violation of the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. The appellant has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Blue Star Ltd. 40 ITR (Trib) 0035 (Mumbai). In the facts of that case the reasons were recorded on 31.03.2010 and notice was dated 30.03.2010. The Hon'ble ITAT in such facts declared the impugned notice u/s 148 and, consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated thereby, as bad in law and the quashing of the assessment was consequently upheld. The case of the appellant clearly gets covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble ITAT. 14. The AO in his remand report has also contended that the issue raised by the appellant by way of filing this additional ground of appeal was not raised before the AO and that no objection in this regard was filed before the AO during the assessment proceedings and therefore the issue raised now in appellate proceedings should be rejected. Such submissions of the AO in the remand report cannot be accepted as the ground raised by the appellant now is purely a legal issue and after such issue was raised, the AO has been given an opportunity an....