TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017 for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "Revised Ground No.1 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,40,260/- i.e. 25% of Rs.5,61,050/- on the count of alleged bogus purchases of "rice bran" from M/s. Syndicate Corporation; disallowance of Rs.1,40,260/- is baseless estimation merely on presumption, surmises and without having any corroborative material/evidence brought on record by the ld. AO, more so, when the ld. AO has not rejected the books of account by applying section 145(3), addition of Rs.1,40,260 is liable to be deleted. 2. On the facts & ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment; the conclusions of the Id AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusions of the information from extraneous sources; indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'; in the absence of live link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; reassessment u/s147/148 is liable to be quashed." Additional Gr.No.3: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reasons are recorded on 31-3-17 & notice issued u/s148 on the same day itself, i.e., on 31-3-17 by mentioning that after approval of Addl. CIT/ CIT/ Chief CIT; the alleged approval granted u/s. l51 would be in most mechanical & routine m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. 4. On the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee as a beneficiary had procured bogus purchase bills of Rs.5,61,050/- from M/s. Syndicate Corporation, Raipur, the case of the assessee firm was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 27.04.2017, declaring an income of Rs.1,90,400/-. 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed to have purchased rice bran of Rs.5,61,050/- from the aforesaid tainted party, viz. M/s. Syndicate Corporation, Raipur. It was observed by the A.O that as the aforesaid party, viz. M/s. Syndicate Corpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of accounts at an inflated value, thus disallowed 25% of the same and made an addition of Rs.1,40,260/- in the hands of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 8. As the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee has confined his contentions to two issues, viz. (i). that the assessee had made genuine purchases from the aforesaid party, therefore, the lower authorities had wrongly held the purchases in question as bogus; and (ii). that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, I think it fit to cull out the "reasons to believe" which forms the very basis for taking recourse to the said proceedings by the A.O, as under: "The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total income at Rs. Nil on 15/10/2010. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) and accordingly, the order u/s 143(1) was passed on 18.04.2011. Information in respect of bogus purchased bills taken by the assessee during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to A.Y.2010-11 is in the possession of this office. It has been seen that the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills from bogus dealer namely Syndicate Corporation amounting to total of Rs.5,61,050/- during F.Y.2009-10 pertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent has no nexus with the material available on record, and is merely based on a pretence, does not find favor with me, as there was sufficient material available with the A.O for taking recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Thus, the additional ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations. 12. Apropos, the claim of the Ld. AR that there is no independent application of mind by the A.O, and the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act have been initiated by him on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction, I am unable to subscribe to the same. On a careful perusal of the "reasons to believe", I find that the A.O after referring to the material as was available before him had clearly applied his ....