TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o DVO was held by the same Learned CIT(A) as contrary to law in earlier assessment order. 3. Reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of account was contrary to law, placing reliance on the estimated report of the registered valuer without first detecting any suppression in investment recorded in the books of account and ultimately sustaining addition of Rs.2,00,290/- again based on pure estimations, are contrary to facts and law. 4. That the Learned CIT (A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining estimated addition of Rs.2,00,290/- without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to substantiate such estimation and without giving justification for ignoring the investment recorded in the books of account. 5. That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts that reference to DVO without rejecting books of accounts was proper. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend. Alter; rescind the grounds taken here in above, before or the time of hearing of this appeal." Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "(ii) That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred both on facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). Now, I will first proceed with adjudication of the additional ground. 7. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR) for the assessee that the impugned assessment had been framed by the A.O without providing to the assessee a copy of the "reasons to believe" on the basis of which his case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee had duly complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 25.04.2014 and filed his return of income, but the AO despite specific request had not made available to him a copy of the "reasons to believe" on the basis of which his case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the failure on the part of the A.O to furnish the copy of "reasons to believe" to the assessee had divested him of his statutory right of objecting to the very basis of reopening of his case u/s.147 of the Act, therefore, the impugned assessment so framed by him was liable to be quashed on the said count itself. 8. The Ld. Departmental Rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of which, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, but the latter had failed to make available the same. My attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the submission of the assessee, Page 3-4 of the CIT(Appeals). On a perusal of the aforesaid submission, it transpires that not only the assessee had in unequivocal terms brought to the notice of the CIT(Appeals) that he had after complying with the notice u/s.148 of the Act requested the A.O for a copy of the "reasons to believe" that formed the very basis for reopening of its case u/s.147 of the Act but in fact had relied on a plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein various Courts had held that framing of an assessment by the A.O without providing to the assessee a copy of the "reasons to believe" would render the assessment order as bad in law. 11. Admittedly, though the assessee had categorically assailed before the CIT(Appeals) the validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s.147/143(3), dated 29.02.2016, on the ground that the same having been framed de-hors making available a copy of the "reasons to believe" forming the very basis for reopening of the case of the assessee could not be sustained for want of val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the said count itself. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Agarwal Metals and Alloys Vs. ACIT & Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 64 (Bom.). In its aforesaid order, the Hon'ble High Court had after taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O in the case before them had failed to communicate the "reasons to believe" on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, quashed the assessment by treating the same as having been passed in a brazen violation of the governing principles of law. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: "4. On these admitted facts, it is evident that there has been a complete violation of the applicable principles of law by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was required to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment which he has failed to do. The Assessing Officer despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) has failed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to submit his objections to the reopening of the assessment. In the affidavit-in-reply, it has been submitted that the asses....