TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in circumstances of the case Ld. ITO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of gift made by her son Sumit Chhabra. 5. On facts and in circumstances of the case Ld. ITO was not justified in making addition of 15,00,000/- on account of gift made by Sh. Ashok Kumar husband of the assessee. 6. On facts and in circumstances of the case Ld. ITO was not justified in making addition of 10,00,000/- on account of gift made by Sh. Ashok Kumar HUF and husband of the assessee. 7. On facts and in circumstances of the case Ld. ITO was not justified in making addition of 6,00,000/- on account of gift made by Sh. Babu Ram father in law of the assessee. 3. Vide ground No. 2 & 3 of this appeal the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in issuing the notice under section 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for reopening the assessment. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed her return of income on 30/03/2011 declaring an income of Rs. 2,06,465/-. Thereafter, the A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act, by issuing the notice under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....permissible under the law. 4. The fact is that the assessee has purchased 1656/8809 share in 440K 9M. The share of assessee comes to 10A-2K-16M for Rs. 49,32,000/- and the assessee has declared the purchase of Agriculture land in his return of income and balance sheet filed with the department and this is the part of balance sheet filed with the return of income. Copy of which has already been filed. The assessment has become final. In the return of income the assessee has declared the source and purchase of Agriculture Land. The purchase of land is part of the balance sheet filed with the return of income. 5. That in addition to above purchase of agriculture land for Rs. 49,32,000/- if your office has any other information for purchase of property amounting to Rs. 1,49,02,500/- the same may be supplied to us. So keeping in view the above facts and circumstances there were no reason to believe for issuance of notice u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and no income has escaped assessment within the meaning and bring my objection on the record and dispose of the same." 5.1. The A.O. however did not find merit in the above objections raised by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee failed to prove the capacity of giving gifts and genuineness of the funds for making gifts by donor to the assessee, he made the addition of Rs. 46,00,000/-. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment and submitted as under: "a) That the assessee filed her return of income electronically vide e-filing acknowledgement No. 210169320300311 on dated 30.03.2011 declaring the income of Rs. 2,06,465/-. Copy of acknowledgement of return of income is enclosed. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act and the assessment has become final. b) That a notice dated 27.03.2017 issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was served upon the assessee and in response to notice the assessee submitted that the assessee has already filed her return of income electronically vide e-filing acknowledgement No. 210169320300311 on dated 30.03.2011 and the assessment have become final. It was further submitted that return of income already filed may be treated against the notice issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Copy of acknowledgement of return of income along with profit and loss account, capital account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect to say that the assessee has not filed her return of income. The notice has been issued on irrelevant ground and on non existing reasons. The notice is based on surmises and suspicion. Any notice issued on non existing reason is not permissible under the law. e) The fact is that the assessee has purchased 1656/8809 share in 440K 9M. The share of assessee comes to 10A-2K-16M for Rs. 49,32,000/- plus stamp duty expenses and the assessee has declared the purchase of Agriculture land at Rs. 52,20,000/- in her return of income and balance sheet filed with the department and this is the part of balance sheet filed with the return of income. Copy of which has already been filed. The assessment has become final. In the return of income the assessee has declared the source of purchase of Agriculture Land. The purchase of land is part of the balance sheet filed with the return of income. f) That in addition to above purchase of agriculture land for Rs. 49,32,000/- plus stamp duty expenses, it was submitted before the A.O. that if office has any other information for purchase of property amounting to Rs. 1,49,02,500/- the same may be supplied to the assessee but no such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 19 (SC). j) That the basic requirement of Section 147 is that the assessing officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and such belief must be belief of jurisdictional assessing officer not any other assessing officer or authority or department. Therefore the jurisdiction of AO to re-open an assessment under Section 147 depends upon issuance of valid notice and in the absence of the same entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction. k) In the case of PCIT Vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 46 Page (Guj) HC, the court has held that even the assessment which is completed u/s. 143(1) cannot be re opened without proper 'reason to believe'. The AO is not allowed to re open a case for making a fishing or roving enquiry without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible. That no reassessment just to make a enquiry or verification or making fishing enquiry can be made keeping in view the following case laws:- i) Bhor Industries Limited Vs. ACIT (2004) 267 ITR (161 Bombay) ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) (2004) 268 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to be set aside. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * Sagar Enterprises Vs. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Guj) * KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School Vs. ITO (2017) 163 ITR 653 (Asr.) (Trib.) * Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust Vs. ITO (2016) 158 ITR 965 (Chd.) (Trib.) * Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV Vs. ADIT-ITA No. 495, 496/Mum/2016 (Mum)(Trib.) dt. 28/02/2018 * Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1014/JP/2018 order dt. 10/10/2019 (Jaipur) * Shri Allen De Noronha Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 338/LKW/2015 order dt. 07/05/2018 (Lucknow Bench) * Shri Manish Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 755/Chd/2012 dated 16.04.2013 (Chd. ITAT) * M/s. Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1570/Del/2013 order dated 14.08.2015 (Del ITAT) * Shri Satnam Singh vs. DCIT in ITA No. 144/Chd/2016 order dated 26.09.2016 (Chd ITAT) * Shri Harakchand K. Gada (HUF) v. ITO ITA No. 2800/Mum/2014, date:09/12/2015 (Mum.) (Trib.) * Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO in ITA No. 21030/2017 dated 21.03.2018 (Guj) * Nir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed at page No. 1 of the assessee's compilation. The assessee had also shown the investment in agricultural land amounting to Rs. 52,20,000/- in her Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010, copy of which is placed at page No. 2 of the assessee's compilation therefore both the reasons given by the A.O. i.e.; the assessee had not filed the return of income and invested in the property amounting to Rs. 1,49,02,500/- were wrong. 10.2. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sagar Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) held as under: "that it was apparent that the fact of non-filing of the return for the assessment year 1991-92 had weighted with the respondent for arriving at the satisfaction about the failure on the part of the assessee and escapement of assessment of income. However, the material on record showed that the return had been filed. In such circumstances, it could not be said with certainty as to which fact would have weighed with the officer concerned and once it was shown that an irrelevant fact had been taken into consideration, to what extent the decision was vitiated would be difficult to say. Moreover the Income-tax Officer had stated....