2025 (9) TMI 1784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 144 of the Act. 2. `The learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in upholding action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Rajkot in not granting the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot in making addition of Rs. 22,35,842/- by way of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of exemption limit. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal at any time upto the date of hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that, on perusal of the available records, the AO was found that the assessee has received unaccounted payments of Rs.22,35,842/- through Shri ChetanbhaiHaribhai Bhalodiya Prop. M/s. Yash Enterprise, Rajkot during the Financial Year 2012-13, i.e. Assessment Year 2013-14. As per the records, the assessee has not filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been shown by the assessee by filing ROI. Hence, the amount of Rs.22,35,842/- was assessed by AO u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the credit was mere a procurement of money without proper explanation of how and why it has come to the assessee; hence unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no signature/digital ID on the approval u/s.151 of the Act. Therefore, approval given by the AO to the reasons recorded by the AO u/s.147/ Rs. 148 of the Act is bad in law. Since there is no approval, therefore, the consequential re-ass1essment proceedings u/s.147/148 of the Act are bad in law. 6.1. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the reasons submitted by the AO are bad in law and there are basis on the borrowed satisfaction and there was no material before the AO to re-open the assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted before us that the reasons o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was held that in absence of any tangible material to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer by merely relying upon information received from Office of Deputy Commissioner, impugned action of reopening assessment while exercising power under section 148 could not be sustained. iii. Bhavin Jayendrakumar Soni (2024) 165 taxmann.com 109 (Guj. HC) wherein it was held that forming of 'reason to believe' is merely based on the information so received by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has recorded its independent satisfaction, but only relied upon the information received from the Investigation Unit, which is nothing, but said to be borrowed satisfaction. Since no tangible and/or new material has come in possession of the Assessing Officer, the reassessment proceedings can also be said on the basis of the change of opinion, which, according to our considered opinion, is not permissible in the eye of law. Hence, in view of binding precedents, the order u/s 147 is bad in law and it is prayed that the same be quashed." 6.2. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity under section 151 of the Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessees under section 148 of the Act, 1961. At the time when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly. 8.2. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order framed by the AO needs to be quashed as there was no approval u/s.151 of the Act for initiating the re-assessment proceedings by the L....