2026 (5) TMI 1455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi has erred in law an or fact to confirm AO' s addition of Rs. 1, 55,00,000/- only on the basis of admission of one of the directors Smt. Parul J. Shah under her statement u/s. 133A of the Act during the course of survey without considering the fact that the appellant company has already shown an amount of Rs. 3,40,75,002/- in its audited books of accounts and offered profit under a ROI filled for A. Y. 2014-15. 2.1 Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law an or fact to confirm AO's addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO has already taxed 8% NP on gross receipts of Rs. 5,90,33,002/- in which unaccounted receipts of Rs. 3,40,75,002/- have already been including, consequently, further addition made by the AO amounts to double taxation. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law an or fact to upheld addition of Rs. 1,53,63,500/- out of AO's addition of Rs. 3,94,63,500/- ignoring the fact that entries reported by the AO at page no. 4 & 5 of the assessment order are already recorded in the books of accounts and the AO has taxed 8 % profit thereon. 3.1. Ld. CIT( A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law an or fact to upheld addi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee. Noting that the assessee had undisclosed income of Rs. 1.55 Crores during the year, which were not declared in its books of accounts, the AO accordingly rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Act and estimated the profits earned by applying rate of 8% to the total receipts declared in the P&L account of the assessee which came to Rs. 47,22,640/-. Further, he sought the assessee's explanation with respect to the amount of Rs. 1.55 Crores allegedly admitted by the Director of the assessee company to be undeclared and undisclosed income of the assessee to which the assessee sought sometime to respond to stating that its accounting data was not available with it. The AO, however, held that since the Director of the assessee company had admitted to Rs. 1.55 Crores being the unaccounted income of the assessee, accordingly, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Further, the AO confronted the assessee with impounded material Annexure-A-4, which revealed amounts totaling in all Rs. 3,94,63,500/- received in cash by the assessee from various persons. The assessee submitted all the amounts mentioned in the said Annexure to be duly accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ; • Sardar Balbir Singh v. ITO-[ 2015] 39 ITR(T) 574 (Lucknow-Trib.) 8. With respect to the facts of the case, he pointed out that the impugned assessment year before us was A.Y. 2014-15. That notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.03.2018 i.e. within four years from the end of the assessment year. That as per the provisions of Section 151(2) of the Act applicable during the impugned period i.e. when the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee in 2018, approval of the Joint Commissioner was required where reopening was resorted to within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act as under: 151. (1) No notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer. after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a f it case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td.(supra). Ld.DR was unable to draw our attention to any contrary decision of either the Hon'ble jurisdictional High court or the Hon'ble apex court. 13. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval granted to the reasons recorded for reopening of the case of the assessee is not in accordance with law and hence invalid. The reopening therefore, we hold, is invalid. 14. Another contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenging the validity of the reopening done in the present case was that in the facts of the present case scrutiny assessment was mandated by CBDT for survey cases and the same could not have been substituted by reopening. That the present case not having been taken up for regular scrutiny it clearly violated the binding instruction of CBDT. 15. The contention was that as per CBDT Circular No.10/2013 dated 05.08.2013 laying down criteria for selection of cases for scrutiny in A.Y. 2014-15, survey cases were mandatorily required to be scrutinized, except where return of income excluding the disclosure made during survey is not less than the return of income of the preceding year. He contended that the AO had hel....