TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andatory provisions of law & procedure laid down u/s 147 to 153, in relation to both reopening u/s 148 and reassessment, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 3. That the Id. AO erred both in law and on the facts in not supplying "Reason to believe" to the assesse, in toto, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 4. That the jurisdictional LD.AO had erred, both in law and in facts, in not jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2), thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 5. That the order passed by LD.AO, was erroneous, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and equity as well as the well settled laws, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 6. That the jurisdictional LD.AO had erred, both in law and in facts, by not issuing Show cause notice, to make addition, thus the reassessment was bad, both, in law and in procedure. 7. That the LD.AO had erred, both in law and in facts, by taxing the share capital, without the mandate of law, in relation to tax rate, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 8. That the LD.AO had erred, both in law and in facts, by not following t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. vs ACIT in W.P.(C) no.1357/2016:- "11. Thus, it is also now well settled that the reasons to believe have to be self explanatory. The reasons cannot be thereafter supported by any extraneous material. The order disposing of the objections cannot act as a substitute for the reasons to believe and neither can any counter affidavit filed before this court in writ proceedings. 12. In the present case, the reasons to believe contained the names of the very same five companies which were initially disclosed by the Petitioner during the assessment proceedings. The number of shares subscribed to by the said companies is the same and the amount received has been disclosed by the Assessee. There is no new material which has been found or mentioned in the reasons to believe which were not contained in the information provided by the Assessee prior to the conclusion of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 13. In fact, the Petitioner, after initially submitting the details of the companies and the shares subscribed to, further provided confirmations from the said companies. The Petitioner also submitted copies of the balance sheets of the said companies for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our view, the question whether the Assessee could have been stated to disclosed fully and truly all material facts have to be examined in the light of facts of each case and also the reasons that led the AO to believe that income of an Assessee has escaped assessment. In a case where the primary facts have been truly disclosed and the issue is only with respect to the inference drawn, the AO would not have the jurisdiction to reopen assessment. But in cases where the primary facts as asserted by the Assessee for framing of assessment are subsequently discovered as false, the reopening of assessment may be justified". 17. In the facts of this case, the primary facts have not been shown to be false. The five companies do exist. They did subscribe to the share capital of the Petitioner. They did pay the money to the Petitioner. All the five companies are assessed to tax. These are the primary facts. The reasons to believe rely upon a letter received from the Investigation Wing and Mr. Chaudhary submits that this letter was in fact an investigation report. The report does not form part of the reasons and neither was it annexed to the reasons. Interestingly, even the counter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning of assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasi-judicial function. The order disposing of the objections should deal with each objection and give proper reasons for the conclusion. No attempt should be made to add to the reasons for reopening of the assessment beyond what has already been disclosed. 20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. 6. Accordingly, it is not is not deemed expedient to deal with the balance grounds, since, the appellant has been successful in challenging the vires of reopening at the very onset. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30^th May, 2025. ============= Document 1 Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3) R No 197A, C R Building, I P Estate, New Delhi Dated: 24.09.2014 F No ITO W 18(3)/Scrutiny/2014-15/ To The Principal Officer, Wonder Moldplast Pvt Ltd 103, Hargovind Enclave, Delhi-92 7 Sir/Madam Sub: Reasons for initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of theincome tax Act, 1961 In the case of M/s Wonder Mold Plast Pvt Ltd (PAN: AAACW6106G) for Assessment year 2008-09 -reg. Please refer to y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n business. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs, 40 lakhs, of the assessee company for AY 2008-09 has escaped assessment due to failure : on the part of the assessee to declare full & true particulars of its Income. The provision of section 147 are attracted and a notice u/s 148 is to be issued" Yours faithfully, 18 (3), TE Po (R.K. BHATIAY Income Tax Officer Ward 18(3), New Delhi आयकर अधिकारी वारà¥à¤¡-18 (3), कमरा सं० 194बी केनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ राजसà¥à¤µ à¤à¤µà¤¨, नई दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ Document 3 FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1. Name COMMISSIONER address of the assessee Pvt M/s Wonder Moldplast Ltd & AAACW6106G 2. PAN/ GIR Company 3. Status 4. Ward Ward 18(3), New Delhi 5. Assessment Year in respect of which it is 2008-09 proposed to issue Notice u/s 14....