TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has erred in holding that the AO has formed his belief for recording the reasons and reopening the assessment proceedings on the basis of wrong premises. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding that the initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act are not valid in the case of the appellant and consequently holding the reassessment proceedings in the said section as invalid. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding that the reopening of assessment proceedings and subsequent assessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Wing states that M/s Yamuna Builders Pvt Ltd. (PAN: AAACY336SP) has paid Rs.1.95 crores in cash to Sh. Narpat Chand Jain during the F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) to purchase a property. The assessee has filed its return of income for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y 2009-10 on 20.9.2009 vide acknowledgement No.88824790200909 declaring loss of Rs.23,951/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 29 10.2010. The case was not selected for scrutiny. On perusal of the return reveals that no investment in property has been declared. Therefore, I am satisfied that assessee has not disclosed complete facts w.r.t. the investments and source of cash payment of Rs.1.5 crores. Hence, 1 am of the view that the income amounting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consequent assessment completed are full of contradictions giving wrong figures and wrong names in the case of appellant. During the remand proceedings also, when the AO was asked to reconcile the aforesaid figures of amounts and also the names, he commented altogether on different issue of admissibility of additional evidence and failed to give clarification on wrong facts. In view of these facts, it is clear that the AO has formed his belief for recording the reasons and reopening the assessment proceedings on the basis of the wrong premise. 4.1 It has to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down the following principles in the case of ITO VS. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437 for constituting the 'reason to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income has escaped assessment, must to be satisfied. Here in the case of the appellant, as discussed above, neither there is any correct and authentic tangible material in the possession of the AO nor could he establish any live link between the materials whatsoever in his possession and formation of belief for recording the satisfaction that appellant has escaped the assessment of any income and subsequently in the assessment order. It is clear from the reasons recorded that the AO failed to even ascertain the true and correct amount of income of escapement, which is main basis of forming belief to reopen the assessment proceedings. Only after initiation of reassessment proceedings, he tried to reconcile the aforesaid differences and reach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons and the reasons must be self evident and must speak for themselves and the reasons to belief must demonstrate the link between .the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to. believe that income escaped assessment. It has been further held by Hon'ble Court that the AO, being a quasijudicial authority, is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on objective criteria for recording the reasons to assume the jurisdiction u/s 147 of IT Act. 4.4 In view of the above, it is held that neither the AO was having any tangible material in his possession nor could he establish any live link between the said material and formation of belief nor could he apply his mind properly in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Narpat Chand Jain during FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10) for purchase of a property. The AO in later part of the reasons recorded itself has changed the figure of cash payment from Rs.1.95 crore to Rs.1.50 crore. Furthermore, in the assessment order, AO also changed the name of the recipient and held that the unexplained investment of Rs.1.95 crore is in the name of Shri Ajay Sharma and not in the name of Shri Narpat Jain as mentioned in the satisfaction note. On these facts, we are in agreement with ld. CIT (A) that reasons recorded and consequent assessment completed are full of contradictions giving wrong figures and wrong names in the case of assessee. It is also noted by ld. CIT (A) that during remand proceedings also, the AO was asked to r....