TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax has escaped assessment. It is his case that "bogus income" has been offered to tax. When the Assessing Officer believes that this amount of Rs. 5,00,500/- is not income at all, the question of income escaping assessment does not arise. This, in my view, cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment as it is against the mandate of the Act. 3.2. Moreover, the assessee has, in the profit and loss account and balance sheet filed, disclosed these transactions and filed details pertaining to the same. This is clear from the computation of profit where the assessee has declared Rs. 2,58,082.28/- as profit from speculation, after setting off business loss. The schedules as well as the computation of income give the details. There is no dispute on the quantum of loss claimed by the assessee. Thus, this is a case where the reopening in question is made without prima facie verification of the information received by the Assessing Officer and without application of mind to the information received from the investigation wing of the Department. 4. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 2307 & 2308/Kol/2017, order dt. 02/11/2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een mentioned. In other words, the contents of the letter dated 16.06.2006 of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi have not been given. The AO has vaguely referred to certain communications that he had received from the DIT(Inv.), New Delhi; the AO did not mention the facts mentioned in the said communication except that from the informations gathered by the DIT (Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee was involved in giving and taking accommodation entries only and represented unsecured money of the assessee company is actually unexplained income of the assessee company or that it has been informed by the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi vide letter dated 16.06.2006 that the assessee company was involved in giving and taking bogus entries/transactions during the relevant financial year. The AO did not mention the details of transactions that represented unexplained income of the assessee company. The information on the basis of which the AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are undoubtedly vague and uncertain and cannot be construed to be sufficient and relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable person could have formed a belief that income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(P.) Ltd. (supra) also supports the view we have taken above." 9. We do not see any reason to differ with the view expressed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7.2. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs G&G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA 545/2015 vide order dt. 08.10.2015 at paras 12 and 13 was held as follows: "12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the assessee on a single date i.e. 10th Feb. 2003, from four entries which were received by the assessee on a single date i.e. 10th Feb. 2003, from four entries which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Director Investigation, the A.O. stated: 'I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has, introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries'. The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the A.O. applied his mind to the materials that he ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer when he recorded the reasons. There should be a link between the reasons and the evidence material available with the Assessing Officer. (iii) The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs during F.Y.2002-03 as stated in the annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. (iv) Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the informati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws :- "No.DCIT/Cir-6/reasons for reopening/09-10 Dated 22/04/2009 To The Principal Officer Greatwall Marketing (P) Ltd. c/o Sri. S.M. Daga 11, Clive Row, Room No. 2 .z-. Fir. Kolkata- 700001. Sir. Sub: Recorded Reasons for Reopening in the case of Greatwall Marketing (P) Ltd. for Asst. Yr. 02-03 Ref: Your letter dated 02/04/09 Please refer to the above. As per information received from investigation wing New Delhi the introduced share capital during the year. had been received from corporate bodies which are non existent and whose capacity to invest ( credit worthiness ) could not be established . Therefore I have reasons to believe that unexplained cash credit had been introduced in your books of accounts in the name of introduction of share capital and receipt of share application money. In absence of satisfactory identity and credit worthiness of the other parties. the entire introduced capital and share application money will be treated as your income for that year. I will therefore continue the proceedings for reassessment of your return u/s 147. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) are enclosed herewith. Yours faithfull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT vs Insecticides (India) Ltd (supra) has taken a view that the reasons recorded were vague and uncertain and cannot be construed as satisfaction on the basis of the relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable person can form a belief that income has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also come to the conclusion that the reasons recorded did not disclose the AO's mind regarding escapement of income. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court ultimately held that initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was not valid and justified in the eyes of law. The facts and circumstances in the present case are identical to the case decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Following the said decision we hold that initiation of re- assessment proceedings is not valid. On this ground, the assessment is liable to be annulled." 6. Applying the propositions of law laid down in these case-law to the facts of this case we hold that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and has recorded reasons which are vague and based on borrowed satisfaction. Hence this ground of the asses....