TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Varah Infra Group of Jodhpur on 21.01.2015, on the allegation that the company has routed its unaccounted money in the form of share premium to various paper companies at Kolkata, Mumbai, Indore and Jodhpur and Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act admitted that he and his associates provide accommodation entries to various willing companies in the form of share capital, share premium, bogus bills, unsecured loans etc. on commission basis. That M/s. Real Time Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, one of the concerns managed by Jagdish Prasad Purohit had made investments amounting to Rs. 20 lacs in assessee company. 4. On the basis of the said information, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act after obtaining sanction from the Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax under section 151 of the Act. In response thereof the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO. The AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Real Time Consultants Pvt. Ltd. however, the AO did not receive any response. Opportunity was also given to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have set aside/quashed the assessment order and deleted the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. The Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in violation of the provisions of law. Since the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of search conducted in the case of M/s. Varah Infra Group, the assessment was required to be completed u/s. 153C of the Act. Since, no action u/s. 153C was taken and assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the assessment order passed by the AO. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa vs. ACIT, ITA No. 795/Chd/2017 for the AY 2010-11 and Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Vs. DCIT ITA No. 702 to 704/Chd/2018 for the AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 to substantiate his contention. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that since the AO had passed the assessment order as per the provisions of law after due application of mind, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the assessment order and confirmed the addition. 9. On the second limb of argument o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and not on the basis of his own satisfaction which is the requirement of the law. The operative part of the order passed by the coordinate Bench is reproduced as under: "There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s. 147 of the Act, it is the A.O. who has to be satisfied and form belief of escapement of income. The AO, no doubt acts on information coming in his possession, for the purpose of reopening a case, but before acting on the same he has to be satisfied that the information sufficiently leads to a belief of escapement of income. He has to apply his mind to the information to arrive at such satisfaction. The reliance placed by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee on latest decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Rajshikha Enterprises Put. Ltd. (supra) is apt, wherein the aforesaid proposition of law was upheld relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 & Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Put. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 which held that while report of the Investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (intelligence & Criminal Investigation) containing details of companies which have received share premium at very unreasonable rate. The findings of the coordinate Bench are as under: "10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at this stage has also invited our attention to the decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'D.D. Agro Industries Ltd. v. ACIT', ITA Nos. 349 & 350/Chd/2017 order dated 7.9.2017, wherein, on identical facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has recorded identical reasons to form belief for reopening of the assessment. The Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction relying upon the non-specific routine information blindly without caring to first independently consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case and that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under the circumstances was wrong. The relevant part of the observations made by the Tribunal (supra) in the identical facts and circumstances of the case or to say in identical set of reasons recorded is reproduc....