TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 04.12.2018 IN Appeal no.146/16-17/2809 2009-10 29.12.2016 DCIT, Circle24(2), New Delhi 2. 1067/Del/2019 CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 04.12.2018 in Appeal No.142/16-17/2804 2009-10 30.12.2016 Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(1), New Delhi 3. 8572/Del/2019 CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 02.09.2019 in Appeal No.140/17-18/159/14-15 2006-07 20.01.2014 Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), New Delhi 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the cases of these three assessee have common question of law involved arising out of common set of facts in the background of which is the information which was received from the office of CIT, Central-II, New Delhi, which indicated the Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta had provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through many bank accounts opened in the name of several proprietorship concern, firms and companies having its employees/associates as directors and partners in them. The assessee company before this Tribunal were also alleged to be one of the beneficiaries, who allegedly had taken accommodation entries in several years. Accordingly, the cases of the assessee company were reopened and the additions were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on record. Prior approval from competent authority was obtained u/s 151 of the Act before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2016 and served upon the assessee. 3. Subsequently, notice u/s 142 (1) dated 24.10.2016 issued along with questionnaire fixing the case for hearing on 03.11.2016. In response to the notices issued the AR of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. In response notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 24.10.2016, the assessee submitted vide letter dated 07.04.2016 that the return filed for A.Y. 2009-10 on 10.09.2009 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the assessee vide its reply also requested to provide the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings vide order sheet entry dated 23.09.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that, the assessee did not filed any objection against the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. A detailed show cause notice dated 13.12.2016 was issued to the assessee to furnish the reply on or before 20.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... followed various decisions of courts and appellate authorities on similar grounds and facts. 6. The assessee reserves the right to modity, delete or raise any other ground of appeal before the CIT(A)." 7. On perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 04.12.2018 it is observed that, during the appellate proceedings assessee vide its reply stated that Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta C.A. has filed a retraction statement with the AGIT, Central Circle- 9(Erstwhile) vide its letter dated 25.12.2011 (reply is incorporated in the Ld. CIT(A) order. 8. In respect of the assessee reply submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that, during the appellate proceedings assessee vide its reply only intimate the appellate authorities that Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta C.A. has filed a retraction statement with the ACIT, Central Circle-9(Erstwhile) vide its letter dated 25.12.2011, however no such ground of appeal was taken by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as grounds mentioned above. 9. That, it is again submitted that, assessee did not raised any kind of such objection at the time of assessment proceeding in respect of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, as as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion and by lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bachittar Singh (supra), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT [1987) 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 / [2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), O. AbdulRazak(supra) Hence, In view of the above, the additional grounds raised by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT are not acceptable as same were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and during the Assessment Proceedings. Again it is submitted that, the assessment record is not traceable in this office. 5. Similar reports were filed in case of other two assessee's also and primarily the decisions have been relied upon of various Hon'ble High Courts that retraction of statement is non-consequential if it is not justified or delayed. Further, the Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reasons recorded were vitiated. As for convenience, the findings in para 3 to 5 in the case of RNAM Finlease Pvt. Ltd vs ITO (supra) are reproduced below:- "3. Primarily, the contention of the ld. counsel is that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the basis of the reasons which were not recorded in accordance with the law, were mechanical and even the approval upon the same was mechanical. Though ld. DR has vehemently defended the issue by submitting that reasons are based on independent examination of information and not just the report of investigation wing. What we find is that at page Nos.334 to 336 the copy of reasons recorded u/s 147 is provided. The same is in fact the extract of the reasons submitted for obtaining approval of the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. After going through the same and the reasons recorded in the two other years, we find that the different AOs have written and narrated the reasons verbatim the same. It is very much apparent from the reasons that it is merely a narration of the content of information received from the Investigation Wing. The reasons mentioned about escapement of income of Rs. 45 lakhs on the basis of acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich make the reasons recording exercise as invalid on well-settled parameters of section 148 of the Act. Second aspect which is notable in the reasons recorded is that there is no intelligible and rational connection in the reasons recorded and a mere conclusion is drawn from un-narrated information which does not fulfil the legal requirement u/s 148 of the Act. What we notice is that the reasons recorded mention conclusions drawn by the CIT Central/investigation wing only which is taken as good enough to draw reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act. We are fully conscious of the fact that the investigation wing of the Income Tax department is very important organ and arm collecting lot of significant information/s under the Act. However, the requirement of recording the reasons u/s 148 of the Act is vested in the AO only and nobody else. In the present case, the AO should have given relevant details in the reasons recorded vis a vis the crucial aspects of information shared by the CIT Central/ investigation wing (if any) which in his own independent opinion led him to formulate the belief for assuming jurisdiction for re-assessment and sans which we cannot approve the present reasons....