TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO has issued notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for AY 2008-09 on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the entities managed by two individuals namely Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Kumar Jain who had been engaged in providing accommodation etnry in various firms such as unsecured loan, share capital and share premium. The AO has completed the assessment u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act after making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the returned loss vide order dated 07.3.2016 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 21.12.2018 has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 143(2) and thereafter assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment on the basis of such a notice is not tenable in law and therefore impugned proceedings need to be quashed." 3.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the aforesaid additional ground is pure legal ground and its adjudication does not require any fresh investigation into facts apart from looking into the material already on record and the same may be admitted in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and the issue in dispute may be decided in favour of the assessee. To support his contention, he draw my attention towards the order sheet dated 05.10.2015 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued on very same date i.e. on 05.10.2015 which shows non application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and thereafter assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment on this basis, the notice is not tenable in law and therefore impugned proceedings need to be quashed. I hold and directly accordingly. My aforesaid view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Silver Line reported in (2016) 383 ITR 455 wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:- "...12. The Court first proposes to consider the question as to whether in terms of the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act, the Assessee was precluded, at the stage of the proceedings before the IT....