TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order. In response to the same, the assessee filed reply dated 21.3.2016 and requested that the return originally filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated as returned filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the AY 2009-10. The assessee was also requested for copy of reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was provided by the AO. The AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 29.9.2016. The AO also issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act by show causing the assessee that why addition of Rs. 60 lacs should not be made u/s. 68 of the Act for AY 2009-10 which the AO has reproduced vide para no. 4 of the assessment order. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee filed the reply dated 27.12.2006 which the AO has reproduced in para no. 5 at page no. 14 to 18 of the assessment order. Rebuttal of the various contentions of the assessee, the AO has reproduced in the assessment order. Thereafter the AO has considered the reply filed by the assessee alongwith the documentary evidences for substantiate the claim of assessee and finally has held that the money in question was receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther argued that the AO has passed the order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that the provisions of section 68 cannot apply to the subject share application money / share capital merely on sole and mere basis of Investigation Wing directions without independent meaningful inquiry u/s. 133(6)/131 from share applicants and made addition of Rs. 50 lacs which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order which deserve to be deleted. Lastly he argued that the revenue authorities has passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice as no back material is offered for cross examination of the assessee during the assessment proceedings made in this regard which is sufficient to strike down. In support of his contention, he filed various case laws in the shape of paper book containing pages 1-225 in which he has attached various orders of the ITAT, Delhi Benches and judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various other Hon'ble High Courts. Finally he requested that the appeal filed by the assessee may be accepted and the addition in dispute may be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19, which has been followed by various Benches of the ITAT, Delhi. The copy of one of the order of the ITAT, Delhi is attached in the paper book at page no. 19-44 which was passed in ITA No. 7372/Del/2019 (AY 2011-12) & Ors. in the case of Smt. Meena Gupta vs. ITO, Faridabad & Ors. The relevant para no. 8.1 at page no. 20-24 of the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench is reproduced as under:- "8.1. The above reasons clearly show that information was supplied by the Investigation Wing to the A.O. that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries received from Shri Pramod Kumar Jindal in whose case search was carriedout on 18.11.2015. The A.O. relied upon the materials supplied by the Investigation Wing to him and statements recorded by the Investigation Wing during the course of search. The A.O. formed his opinion that assessee received accommodation entries of Rs. 15 lakhs from M/s. Timon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. However, later on, it transpired that assessee has received only accommodation entry of Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus, there is a factual error in the reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material could not be used in evidence against the assessee for making any addition. It may also be noted here that assessees raised the objections against the reopening of the assessment on 27/28/29/30.11.2018, but, the objections of the assessee have not been disposed of by the A.O. prior to passing of the reassessment orders. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly show that objections of the assessee have been dealt by the A.O. in the assessment order by passing the composite order. Thus, it is clear that objections of all the Assessees were not disposed of prior to passing of the reassessment order. Thus, it is clearly in violation of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN Drive Shafts [SC], Haryana Acleric [Delhi-HC], Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., [BombayHC] relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Thus, in our opinion, reopening of the assessment is clearly bad in Law and is liable to be quashed. The A.O. did not assume the jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in accordance with Law and as such, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. The addition is also liable to be deleted. In view of the above dis....