TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in not questioning the action of the learned A.O. who has used information collected behind the back of the assessee without confronting it and affording a chance of cross examination and chance to rebut them, despite a specific request for it. 2. That the re-opening of assessment is not valid in law. 3. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 01.11.2004 at nil income which was processed under sec. 143(1) on 14.10.2005. Subsequently, on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the possession of the copies of relevant statement etc. recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Department and without examining the veracity of the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer did not bother himself to apply his own mind to justify initiation of reopening proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel submitted further that without prejudice to the contention that the reopening was not valid, the assessee had also furnished sufficient evidences to establish that the claimed receipt of Rs. 5 lacs on account of share application money was genuine. These evidences filed before the Assessing Officer were confirmation from Rabik Exports Ltd. for having applied and paid by cheque of Corporation Bank Rs.5 lacs as share application money. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requested the Assessing Officer to furnish copies of the evidences collected and statements recorded and to produce the persons whose statements were used against the assessee to cross examine them but the said request was not allowed by the A.O. Both on the issue of validity of initiation of reopening proceedings and on the merit of the addition in question, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Signature Hotel P. Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. (2011) -338 ITR 51 (Del.); ii) Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. - ITA 545/2015 - order dated 8.10.2015 (Delhi High Court); iii) M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 - order dated 2.9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount of the assessee coming from the account of Rubik Exports Ltd. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer thereafter has mentioned as "5. Enquiries by the Investigation Wing, has revealed that M/s. Rubik Exports Ltd. have given the entries to my assessee M/s. Kastub Investment Ltd.. In the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee has shown these receipts in its bank account as per the record of DIT(Inv.), New Delhi." In para No. 7 of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has further mentioned that since the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 has not been scrutinized as more over since the entries taken by the assessee from the said entry operator could not be collated/verified from the return filed, and also a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Even approval of the competent officer has not been obtained as a token of his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of reopening proceedings in the manner prescribed under sec. 151 of the Act. We thus respectfully following the ratios laid down in the above cited recent decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the cases of Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (supra) and Signatures Hotel P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) hold that initiation of reopening proceedings in the present case, merely based on the vague information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, without application of mind by the Assessing Officer thereupon and in absence of obtaining of approva....