TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent appeals are identical. It was common stand of the parties before the Bench that the arguments advanced in ITA 1139/CHD/2017 on the jurisdictional issue would address the arguments in the other appeal also. Accordingly, we first take up for consideration the issue raised by the assessee in ITA 1139/CHD/2017 : 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of Learned AO under section 147/148 read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the absence of escapement of income during AY 2007-08. 2. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Learned AO were bad in law and liable to be quashed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase of properties available in this office, the assessee during the financial year 2006-07 had made investment of Rs. 86,00,000/- and Rs. 1,05,00,000/- with other five persons having equal share which comes to Rs. 31,83,333/-. As per this office records assessee has not declared this transactions in his income tax return Therefore, income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 31,83,333/- (l/6th part of Rs. 1,40,60,096/-) has escaped assessment for A.Y.2007-08 by reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for A.Y.2007-08. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the above amount of Rs. Rs. 31,83,333/- for the F.Y.2006-07 relating to A.Y.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing decisions were specifically brought to our notice in support of the prayer: 1. Sarika Jain V/s Income Tax Officer 46 ITR (Trib) 246 CHD-TRIB 2. Krown Aqro Foods Pvt. Ltd V/s Assistant Commissioner of income Tax I 120 DTR 241 DELHI High Court 3. Amrik Singh V/s Income Tax Officer 181TTJ95ASR-Tribunal 4. Surinder Mohini Bawa V/s Income Tax Officer Bench, Amritsar ITA No. 649/ASR/2015, ITAT, Amritsar 5. Signature Hotels (P) Ltd V/s Income Tax Officer 338 ITR 51 DEL-HC 6. United Electrical Company (P) Ltd V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 258 ITR 317 DELHI High Court 7. JCIT V/s George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 258 ITR 126 GAU-HC 8. Commissioner of income fax V/s Orient Craft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und was made. Similarly, in the case of Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal with a similar order dated 12.01.2015, it was submitted that no addition on this ground had been made, copy of which was also filed. Same was the position in the case of Kamlesh Goyal wherein similar order dated 05.08.2014 was passed. 2.5 Accordingly, it was his submission that the re-opening is bad in law. 2.6 The ld. AR was directed to argue the appeal also on merits. Even on merits, it was his submission that addition is not maintainable. The argument advanced before the AO and the CIT(A) wherein for Prabha Goel, it was argued that she was income tax assessee for the last 10 years and has explained that advance of Rs. 10 Lacs was given from the past savings and handed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l referred. The mere fact that on investment is made in a specific year by itself cannot be a triggering fact or for reopening. It may be a triggering factor to consider the record and then record reasons referring to material which led to the formation of the belief. The AO is well aware that in the returns there was no column for referring to investments made. Thus the so called justification that as per the office records the assessee had not declared this transactions in her income tax return by itself is of no relevance and supports the assessee's arguments that no other material was seen by the AO and he has blindly accepted this information as an act of income escaping assessment. There is no material referred to by him which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80 ITR 319. The issue is well settled as enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krown Agro Foods P.Ltd. Vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 0113 (Del) that the requirements of law for re-opening an assessment is reason to belief and not reason to suspect. In the facts of the present case, we find that the reason to believe recorded by the AO was not based on any material that had come to the knowledge of the AO. The AIR information that the assessee had made an investment could be a triggering fact for creating a suspicion which the AO was under law required to cross check from the information by way of returned income for the last few years and then he could be said to have formed a belief that such an investment could have....