TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised in Ground No.1 & 2 is against the invalid reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the reassessment framed as well as consequent assessment deserved to be quashed. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total loss of Rs. 47,11,358/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after the Assessing Officer received information from ADIT(Inv.), Unit-3(1), Kolkata that the assessee has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, reasons were recorded and notice u/s 148 was issued on 20.03.2019 after obtaining approval from ld. Pr. CIT-2, Kolk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id reasons, the Assessing Officer has noted that huge funds were credited to the bank account of M/s Startrack Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. from the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe based on the said material that Rs. 1,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The ld. counsel, therefore, stated that in the said reasons, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has given Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to M/s Startrack Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. whereas as a matter of fact this unsecured loan was raised by the assessee from M/s Startrack Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. which was also refunded during the year. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were totally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h clearly reveals that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 50 lacs on 21.05.2022 by way of two entries of Rs. 25,00,000/- each and on 25.05.2011 Rs. 50 lacs by way of two entries of Rs. 25,00,000/- each. Meaning thereby that the assessee has borrowed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on 09.06.2011 which was repaid by the assessee on 13.06.2011 by making repayments of Rs. 75,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- respectively. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the reopening has been made up on the basis of wrong reasons which are totally vague, wrong and scanty. In our view, the assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of such reasons as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insecticides (India) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asons recorded, it is nowhere mentioned as to who had given bogus entries/transactions to the assessee or to whom the assessee had given bogus entries or transactions. It is also nowhere mentioned as to on which dates and through which mode the bogus entries and transactions were made by the assessee. What was the information given by the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi, vide letter dated 16.06.2006 has also not been 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 excep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions given and taken by the assessee in the relevant year and with whom the transaction had taken place. As already noted above, it is well settled that only the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are to be looked at or examined for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons. Therefore, the details of entries or amount mentioned in the assessment order and in respect of which ultimate addition has been made by the AO, cannot be made a basis to say that the reasons recorded by the AO were with reference to those amounts ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch form the basis of reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and further held that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report and indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction as the reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. 7.2 Similarly, in the case of PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: "13. Mr. Sawhney took the Court through the order of the CIT(A) to show how the CIT (A) discussed the materials produced during the hearing of the appeal. The Court would like to observe that this is in the natur....