TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga, (in brevity the ld. AO), order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are filed under the same factual backdrops as well as the under the same issue related to the reopening u/s 148 of the act on basis of report of Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "CBI"). Considering the request of both the parties in ITA No. 697/Asr/2019 is taken as a lead case. 3. The assessee has filed the grounds of appeal with appeal petition. But later filed amended grounds and prayed for acceptance. The prayer is accepted by the Bench. The assessee has taken the following amended grounds: - Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 697/Asr/2019 for AY 2005-06 "1. That the revenue do not have on record notice u/s 148 and reasons recorded u/s 148 and approval u/s 151 from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, as mentioned in Para-1.2 of the A.O's order being revenue could not provide copies thereof to the appellant under RTI even after filing of RTI second appeal dtd. 25-08-22 and assessment order is bad-in-law and does not lead to valid jurisdiction. 2. That th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 168480/- of deposit in her hands being this account was opened on the directions of the company to facilitate smooth functioning of the family business/company i.e. appellant and said bank account belongs to appellant and be assessed in the hands of appellant only being otherwise tantamount to double addition. 4. That Ld. A.O. wrongly considered Centurion bank account at Moga in the hands of Roshan Lai, Narinder Kumar and Kashmir Chand, all real brothers and made 1/3rd addition of Rs. 1224460/- each (4147084 x l/3rd = Rs. 1224460/-) of deposit of sale proceeds in their hands being this account was opened on the directions of the company to facilitate smooth functioning of the family business/company i.e. M/s Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and said bank account belongs to appellant and Rs. 4147084/- be assessed in the hands of appellant only being tantamount to double addition. That the Ld. A.O wrongly made the following additions in the hands of the hands of Kashmir Chand instead of in the hands of appellant a) Purchase of injections from undisclosed sources = Rs. 3360823/- ( Para 6 of A.O's order of Kashmir Chand) b) Sale of inje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise tantamount to double addition. 4. That Ld. A.O. wrongly considered Centurion bank account in the hands of Roshan Lal Kawatra director of appellant company and made addition of l/3rd = Rs. 146072/- in his hands out of Rs. 438216/- deposited during the year out of sale proceeds being this account was opened jointly with real brothers Kashmir Chand and Narinder Kumar on the directions of the company to facilitate smooth functioning of the family business/company i.e. appellant and said bank account belongs to appellant and be assessed in the hands of appellant only being otherwise tantamount to double addition. 5. That the Id. A.O wrongly considered cash of Rs. 13.70 lacs as recovered from the premises of Sh. Ashok Kumar as undisclosed income of Sh. Ashok Kumar without bringing any evidence on record, whereas the said cash was sale proceeds of appellant company and be assessed in the hands of appellant only being otherwise tantamount to double addition. 6. That the Id. A.O wrongly considered cash of Rs. 20 Lacs as recovered from the premises of Sh. Roshan Lai Kawatra as undisclosed income of Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra without bringing any evidence on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et and the report received from the Central Bureau of Investigation. The copy of the report is annexed in pg. No. 12 to 20 of APB. The ld. AR further invited our attention in order of the ld. CIT(A) page 24 para 6.3.1: "6.3.1. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, 1 am not inclined to agree with the contention of appellant. It is also a fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has also explained in his written report, duly supported by assessment record, that the assessee was made available, of all the Photocopies of the material received from the office of assessing officer received from CBI authorities firstly for inspection. As reported by assessing officer in his remand report the assessee dragged the formalities of taking Photocopies of the relevant material, till the late stages of these proceedings. The assessing officer has also mentioned that the assessee was given 1837 copies of sale and purchase papers, relating to the statements of various persons available in his office to the appellant on 6th February 2013. As per Assessing Officers report dated 9lh December 2014, the appellant was made available following statements also. I. Statement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd 39-55 2 Mrs. Richa Kawatra 56-57 3 Mr Roshan Lal Kawatra 58-60 4 Mr. Narinder Kumar 61-62 5 Mr. Kashmir Chand 63-64 6 Mr. Ashok Kumar 65-66 7. The ld. DR fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities and had not placed any contradictory fact before the bench. 8. We heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material available in the record. The ld. AR during hearing also submitted the order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court about the order of the CBI and as per this order the matter stayed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Copy of the order is placed before the bench. Further the books of accounts which is impounded by the CBI was not verified by any of the revenue authorities during passing the order. It is a fit case that the assessee has not got a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its fact before the revenue authorities. Only on basis of the loose papers and report of CBI, the assessment order was passed by the revenue wit....