TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act) concerning A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that initiation of reassessment proceeding and notice u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and time barred. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that impugned order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that assessment order passed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital/share premium was made on the touchstone of Section 68 of the Act by holding the nature and source of such credits to be unsatisfactory. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed under Section 147 of the Act as well as the merits of the additions made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) however upheld the validity of jurisdiction assumed under Section 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) also found that case made out by the assessee to be bereft of any merits. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on both counts namely jurisdiction as well as on factual matrix and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the A.O. in the instant case reopened the assessment as per the provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording reasons which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the A.O. has reopened the assessment on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and in a mechanical manner without independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction and, therefore, such reopening of assessment being not in accordance with law should be quashed. It is also his submission that approving authority has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has recorded the satisfaction in a mechanical manner without application of independent mind and on borrowed satisfaction do not hold good. In all those cases the reopening had taken place on the basis of search and seizure operation or survey proceedings in the case of entry providers. But, here is a case where the survey had taken place in assessee's own premises and the Director as well as Accountant of the assessee company had failed to provide any evidence regarding introduction of share capital. Further the Addl. CIT while granting approval has also recorded his satisfaction. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings. Accordingly, g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for statistical purposes." 9. As stated on behalf of the assessee, the assessment orders in the case of Assessee and Priya Diamonds are identical. As further stated, the factual matrix in the case of the assessee in M/s. Priya Diamonds are similar. In the instant case also, the Revenue has committed infringement of principles of natural justice by not confronting the copy of statement adverse to the assessee while placing reliance on such statement as printed out by the assessee. Thus, owing to similarities on facts, the findings rendered in M/s. Priya Diamonds shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the assessee. 10. In conclusion, objection towards lack of jurisdiction conferred under Section 147 of the Act is adjudicated against th....