TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) That the reasons are factually incorrect and contains duplicate entries and having been recorded without proper application of mind, the same are invalid and fails to provide valid jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (iv) That in any case, in absence of disposal of objections to notice u/s 148 through speaking order, the entire reassessment proceedings is in disregard to principle laid down Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts 259 ITR 19and not sustainable under the law. 2. That the assessing officer having failed to issue and serve mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 suffers from incurable jurisdictional defect and are illegal and void-ab-initio. 3(i) That in any case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 45,34,228/- u/s 69C of the Act being purchases made by the appellant even though same is supported from relevant documents. (ii) That the source of expenses being not in dispute, the invocation of section 69C and consequential addition is illegal, irrational and not sustainable under the provisions of the Act. (iii) That in any case, the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same assessee has filed before the Assessing Officer which the Assessing Officer has reproduced in the assessment order. Assessee has also filed the statement of assessee maintained with Standard Chartered Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi in support of his contention and lastly requested the Assessing Officer to decide the objection raised by the assessee and drop the proceedings under section 148 of the I.T. Act and assessed the income as per return. 4. After considering the return, reply, objection and documentary evidence filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the same and made the addition of Rs. 37,34,003/- doubting the documentary evidence filed by the assessee by holding that there was no actual purchases happened in the year under consideration and his transaction is a bogus and added back in the income of the assessee as per the provision under section 69(c) of the I.T. Act and also added Rs. 8,00,225/- on account of payment against bills issued by Prakartik Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee for supply of plant and flowers etc., and also treated the same as bogus and added back in the income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act and complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....book of the appellant. Assessee has also attached a copy of extract of bank statement and some case laws supporting the case of the assessee. 11.We have gone through the documentary evidence filed by the assessee alongwith the case laws and we are of the view that Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 27.03.2015 to the assessee under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in which the AO has stated that income of Rs. 98,09,007/- in respect of which assessee are assessable / chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 as escape assessment within the meaning of under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directed the assessee to file its reply within 30 days from the service of this notice. We have also perused the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act in which the AO has stated that the assessee has taken an accommodation entries from eight companies amounting to Rs. 98,09,007/-. The Assessing Officer has also sought the approval dated 28.03.2015 from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-23, New Delhi has stated yes I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of I.T. Act, 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the I.T. Act which deserves to be annulled / quashed." 13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that in absence of disposal of objection filed to the notice under section 148 of the Act through speaking order, the entire reassessment proceedings is in disregard to the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.K.N. vs. Driveshafts (India) as reproduced above. Therefore, we declare the notice under section 148 of the Act is contrary to the law, null and void and assessment subsequently framed is also cancelled similarly the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority is also sustainable in the eyes of law, we cancel the orders passed by the Revenue authorities by deleting the addition in dispute and accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. 14. As regards to the request of approval in terms of section 151 of the Act, we have also perused that the notice under section 148 of the Act is dated 27.03.2015 whereas the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-23, New Delhi has given the approval on 28.03.2015 as per page 5 of the paper book. We declare this approval is als....