AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Department and an investigation was conducted in the case of M/s. GP Trading Company by the Ghaziabad DDIT (Inv.)-I. As per the information, the Assessing Officer observed that GP Trading Company is a partnership firm and the abovesaid firm has never filed ITRs and engaged in providing accommodation entries on commission basis and also issued bogus bills/ purchases. The Assessing Officer observed that Anil Kumar Singhal, partner of the firm on oath has accepted that he is an entry provider and issued bogus bills to the beneficiaries. He has showed details of 25 firms/companies through whom he was operating. Based on his statement, the AO observed that assessee is also one of the beneficiaries and during the year under consideration, assessee has paid Rs. 61,35,06,875/- to Giriraj Global Limited and Rs. 54,57,33,921/- to M/s. Multiblizz Traders Pvt. Ltd., which are the entities controlled by Anil Kumar Singhal. Based on the above facts on record, case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee, assessee was asked to file the return of income. Accordingly, assessee filed the return of income declaring the original return of income on 25.08.2022.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. That the order of tile CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law." "ASSESSEE'S APPEAL (ITA No.4749/Del/2024) 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as "CIT(A)" is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circl1mstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily and mechanically holding the reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as valid which is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily and mechanically holding the reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as valid which is merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same subject matter which have already been assessed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3), is in violation of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Kelvinator India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 3. That on the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which corroborate sue addition apart from statement of Mr. Anil Kumar Singhal. It is well settled la that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. We are relying upon the following case laws: * Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata II [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3, Supreme Court * Commissioner of Income tax v Pradeep Kumar Gupta [2008] 303 ITR 195 (High Court - Delhi) * Commissioner of Income tax v Rajesh Kumar [2008] 306 ITR 27 (HC Delhi) 4. The case of the appellant has been already assessed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and there is no failure on the part of the appellant to furnished fully and truly all the material fact necessary for its assessment and therefore reopening was merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same subject matter in violation of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral justice and the addition was made purely on the basis of statement of third party and making addition in the hands of the assessee without there being any opportunity to the effected person. We observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT (supra) has dealt with this issue and held as under :- "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year: ******" "148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.-(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by an assessing officer resulting from what he thinks on a particular question. It is a result of understanding, experience and reflection. 11. It is well settled and held by this court in a catena of judgments and it would be sufficient to refer CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC) wherein this Court has held as under:- '5....where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe"..... Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change ....