TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is available from the assessment order, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of an information stated to be available on record. 4. By way of assessment order, the AO computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 50,67,460/- by making an addition of Rs. 22,50,000/- while resorting to the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. It may be mentioned here that in the assessment order, the AO recorded following reasons for reopening: "During the course of assessment proceedings w/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14 it was found that the assessee has shown payment of interest amounting to Rs. 54,000/- to M/s Kajal Agencies Pvt. Ltd and Rs. 3,60,000/- to M/s Alfa Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has not been able to prove transactions with these companies and failed to produce Directors of these companies, therefore, I have reason to believe that the loan alleged to have been taken from these two companies is bogus. Therefore 1, have reasons to believe that income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 12,50,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147/178." 6. Finding that income had escaped assessment, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31-03-2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income on 28-04-2016 declaring its income at Rs. 28,17,460/- and it was thereafter that notice u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12-05-2016. Ultimatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order was bad in law, following observations were made in the impugned order : "5.7 Ground of Appeal One - Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s 148 and the consequent order passed u/s 147 is illegal and bad in law It is not clear on what point the appellant is contesting the violation of natural justice. On perusal of timeline, it is seen that Ld.JAO has duly recorded the reasons as reproduced in assessment order, obtained approval from the competent authority, issued and served reopening and other notices, took submissions on record. disposed of the objection raised served them, made appellant aware of the issue at hand and passed order. Nothing has been bought on record to sugges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard. So, it remains unexplained as to why the assessee was not provided reasons for reopening of the case. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A), did not give any cogent and convincing reason while dealing with said contention raised on behalf of the appellant challenging legality of the assessment order, when, admittedly, reasons for reopening were not communicated to the assessee after service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In this way, the assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity to know the reasons for reopening and to file objections to the said notice. Having regard to the decision in the case of GKN Drivshafts (India) Ltd. vs ITO and Ors (supra), we find merit in the contention raised by the ld. AR for the appellant that the a....