TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de therein are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 29.08.2018 has erred m confirming the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 3. That the notice dated 23.03.2012 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. 4. That the mandatory approval under Section 151 of the Act for issuing the notice dated 23.03.2012 under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical in nature, and without any application of mind. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the addition of Rs. 1,49,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act, purportedly on account of unexplained credits. The addition made is unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. Hence, the same is liable to be deleted. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer on the one hand is accepting the capital gain and simultaneously as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2005-06 was accepted at the income declared u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2007. 4. The AO subsequently, received information, from the Investigation Wing, Delhi, in respect of bogus accommodation entries provided by Surender Kumar Jain Group to the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,49,50,000/- The case was reopened on the basis of this information and notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2012 was issued to the assessee. The AO in the reassessment order, made an addition of Rs. 1,49,50,000/- on account of accommodation entry in respect of shares sold to Steller Investment Ltd. Rs. 84,50,000/- and Besty Growth Finance Ltd. Rs. 65,00,000/-. On appeal, the additions were confirmed by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, assessee is now before us. 5. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee challenged the validity of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. It was submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2012 is barred by limitation as the notice was received by the assessee on 07.04.2012. The ld AR argued that the mere fact that assessee participated in the Assessment proceedings after coming to know of it will not constitute a waiver of the requirement of effecting proper s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. As far as the issuance of notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation is concerned, we find that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2012 and was dispatched by the AO through registered post on 31.03.2012 at 07.27 pm. In such situation, the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Abab Offshore Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 37 (Madras) [08- 11-2016] has held that when postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation. In view of the same, this argument is rejected. 10. In so far as the argument of the assessee that assessment order u/s 147/143(3) has been passed without issuance of any notice u/s 143(2), we find that it has no force. We find from the reassessment order dated 28.03.2013, that the AO has noted that notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act dated 30-03-2012 was issued calling for filing of return of income. The uncontroverted fact however remains that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. We note that law evolved on the subject of reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act mandates that the reopening requires a "live link" between specific, tangible material and the Assessing Officer's (AO) "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. Further the jurisprudence on this issue is reopening based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the AO applying his own mind or gathering corroborative evidence, has been considered as invalid. Further the reopening is invalid if based solely on suspicion, borrowed satisfaction, or in the absence of quantified escaped income. 14. On perusal of the reasons recorded, first of all we find that the same are undated, hence it is unclear whether the reasons were recorded before the issuance of the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2012. We find, in the instant case, that the AO had received information from the Investigation Wing but has made no effort to apply his own mind or gather any corroborative evidence to substantiate the information. It was incumbent upon the AO to establish a 'live link' between the specific, tangible materials found and the 'reasons to believe' recorded for....