NEELAM ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi on the following grounds:-

1. That order passed by Ld AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed by ld CIT A dated 20/11/2018 are bad in law in as much as notice U/S 148 dated 31/3/2017 was issued by ITO Ward 68(2) New Delhi whereas impugned assessment is framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi who has admittedly neither recorded reasons uls 148 nor issued any notice uls 148 so impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A are void ab initio being passed without jurisdiction.

2. That order passed by Ld AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed by ld CIT A dated 20/11/2018 are bad in law in as much as notice uls 148 dated 31/03/2017 is apparently issued after time barring date as it is recd. by assessee only on 05/04/2017 so impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A are void ab initio being passed on basis of time barred notice uls 148 of the Act.

4. That order passed by Ld AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed by ld CIT A dated 20/11/2018 are bad in law in as much as notice U/S 148 dated 31/03/2017 is based on mechanical approval of PCIT 23 New Delhi merely endorsing the ritualistic words 'yes I am satisfied" which makes the impugned assessment framed by ITO Ward 36(4) New Delhi and consequential orders of CIT-A as void ab initio being passed on basis of invalid approval of PCIT- 23 New Delhi. Merits of the case 5. That Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs 13,00,527 on a/c of cost of improvement which is fully genuine and admissible uls 48 of the Act;. 6. That Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs 19,07,832 being genuine business loss admissible as per provisions of the law which is not subject matter of reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act thus beyond the scope of reopening proceedings under the law. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add any / alter any / all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Humble Prayer:- i) To quash the reopening made u/s. 148 of the Act being made in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act: ii) To delete the both the disallowances made and iii) To restore returned income. iv) Any other appropriate relief. 2

2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed the copy of reasons recorded by the AO and approval granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-23, New Delhi for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. He stated that the AO has erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Act on the basis of invalid and mechanical approval granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-23, New Delhi wherein it was mentioned “YES, I AM SATISFIED”, which shows that Ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi-23, New Delhi has not recorded proper satisfaction and without application of mind gave the approval in a mechanical manner. He further stated that this legal/jurisdictional ground is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi dated 21.8.2019 in the case of Gopal Chand Manudhra and Sons; Damyanti Mundhra; Ramdev Mundhra; Shriya Devi Mundhra and Gopal Chand Mundhra vs. ITO, Wards 55(5), New Delhi decided in 1721; 1722; 1523- 1524/Del/2019 respectively relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and therefore, he requested that the same ratio may be followed in the present case and appeal of the assessee may be allowed accordingly by quashing the reassessment proceedings.

3. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the reasons recorded and satisfaction / approval accorded is within the meaning of section 151 of the Act and need not to be quashed. He stated that apart from relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the following cases laws may kindly be considered with regard to reopening of cases u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act:- 1. Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) 29018) 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi). i) Where Congress Party gave loan to AJL and assigned said loan to non-profit YI which subsequently issued shares to assesses at a price less than FMV, non- disclosure by assesses of allotment of shares in YI would be a reason to initiate reassessment proceedings. ii) Relying on PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 651/Del/2016 dated 11.1.2016 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court) approval u/s. 151 upheld.

2.1 Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly.

3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped income, will not debar the AO from exercising his jurisdiction to assess the assessee on reopening notice..

4. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court T20141 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) In terms of section 148, law only requires that information or material on which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be communicated to assessee, without mandating disclosure of any specific document.

10. Ankit Aqrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs JCIT Rajasthan High Court [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) Where DIT informed that assessee-company had received share application money from several entities which were only engaged in business of providing bogus accommodation entries to beneficiary concerns, reassessment on basis of said information was justified.

11. Rakesh Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court f20181 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) Where Assessing Officer received information from Principle Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that assessee had received bogus loss from his broker by client code modification, reassessment on basis of said information was justified.

12. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC). SLP dismissed against High Court’s order that non-compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2002) 125 Taxman 963 that on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, Assessing

Officer is bound to dispose objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment order void ab initio.

18. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by recording the reasons and after obtaining approval from the JCIT and the PCIT on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry of bogus long-term capital gain. The reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs and, therefore, the same is not being reproduced here to avoid repetition. However, a perusal of the column No.12 and 13 of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and for obtaining the approval of the Addl./Joint CIT, copy of which is placed at page 40 of the paper book, reveals that the JCIT while giving his approval has mentioned as under:- “Recommended for approval u/s 147 of the Act.

20. I find the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding an identical issue has quashed the reassessment proceedings where the approving 7 authorities while giving approval has simply mentioned “Yes. I am satisfied.” The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 10 onwards read as under:-

“10. First of all, ld. AR for the assessee company drew our attention towards sanction accorded by the Addl.CIT for reopening of the assessment obtained by moving an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, available on file as Annexure 'A'. Perusal of the sanction accorded by Addl. CIT in the prescribed proforma shows that there is a question no.13 viz. :

"13. Whether the Addl. CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded under section 147 that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the IT Act.

11. In response to aforesaid question no.13 in the prescribed proforma, Addl. CIT has written "Yes. I am satisfied." No doubt, columns of reasons recorded was there and it is also mentioned in column no.12 that reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment are as per annexure enclosed but such annexure has not been produced before the Bench for perusal.

12. Apparently, from the approval recorded and words used that "Yes. I am satisfied.", it has proved on record that the sanction is merely mechanical and Addl.CIT has not applied independent mind while according sanction as there is not an iota of material on record as to what documents he had perused and what were the reasons for his being satisfied to accord the sanction to initiate the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.

13. Even AO while recording the reasons for initiating the reopening of assessment has not applied his mind independently. When we peruse the reasons recorded, available at pages 31-32 of the paper book, the entire reasons have been based on the statement of one Shri P.K. Jindal, who has furnished the list of companies stated to be not doing any business activities but engaged in providing accommodation entries. Before issuing the notice AO appeared to have not examined the profile of the said companies to arrive at a logical conclusion so as to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. When this fact is examined in the light of the completed assessment of the assessee u/s 143 (3), all the documents concerning share application money, now available at pages 1 to 30 of the paper book, were supplied to the AO. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the AO before initiating the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. However, since reopening of assessment in this case is otherwise not sustainable, we are not entering into any merits.

" Section 151, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under. section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Search and Seizure-Procedure for black Assessment- Search was conducted at residential and business premises of Assessee and notice for block assessment u/s. 158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded-Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and CO No.57/Del/2012 147- CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, for according sanction, was merely recording 'I am Satisfied'- Action for sanction was alleged to be without application of mind and to be done in mechanical manner-Held, while according sanction, Joint Commissioner, Income Tax only recorded "Yes, I am satisfied"- Mechanical way of recording satisfaction by Joint Commissioner, that accorded sanction for issuing notice u/s. 147, was clearly unsustainable-On such• consideration, both Appellate authorities interfered into matter- No error was committed warranting reconsideration-As far as explanation to S. 151, brought into force by Finance Act, 2008 was concerned, same only pertained to 11 issuance of notice and not with regard to manner of recording satisfaction-Amended provision did not help Revenue-No question of law involved in matter, that warranted reconsideration-Revenue's Appeals dismissed."

" Reassessment-Issuance of Notice- Sanction for issue of Notice- Assessee had in its return for A Y 2001-02 claimed that sum of Rs. 1 Crore was received towards share application amounts and a further sum of Thirty Five Lakhs was credited to it as an advance towards loan-Original assessment was completed u/s 143(3)-However, pursuant to reassessment notice, which was dropped due to technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh-After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000-CIT(A) held against assessee on legality of reassessment notice but allowed assessee's appeal on merits holding that AO did not conduct appropriate enquiry to conclude that share inclusion and advances received were from bogus entities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits- Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits-Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment- Tribunal upheld assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre- condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion- Mere appending of expression 'approved' says nothing-It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up-At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could be reflected in briefest possible manner- In present case, exercise 13 appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer- Revenue's appeal dismissed."

16. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case cited as SABH Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP 14 (C) 1357/2016 order dated 25.09.2017 has issued guidelines to the Revenue authorities while deciding the issue of reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act. Operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

"19. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a routine basis, a large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the reopening of assessments by the Revenue under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and despite numerous judgments on this issue, the same errors are repeated by the concerned Revenue authorities. In this background, the Court would like the Revenue to adhere to the following guidelines in matters of reopening of assessments:

(i) while communicating the reasons for reopening the assessment, the copy of the standard form used by the AO for obtaining the approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the Assessee. This would contain the comment or endorsement of the Superior Officer with his name, designation and date. In other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided;

(ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for re- opening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso to Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof;

(iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant portions of such report should be enclosed along with the reasons;

(iv) the exercise of considering the Assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasi- judicial function. The order disposing of the objections should deal with each objection and give proper reasons for the conclusion. No attempt should be made to add to 16 the reasons for reopening of the assessment beyond what has already been disclosed."

17. In view of what has been discussed above, reassessment opened by the AO in this case is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence hereby quashed. Consequently, cross objection filed by the assessee company stands allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous.

21. I find the Tribunal in the case of Raghav Technology Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding an identical issue has also quashed the reassessment proceedings under similar circumstances by observing as under:-

“8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the case of the assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons and issue of notice u/s 148 as per the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry obtained from Surendra Kumar Jain group of cases towards introduction of share capital of Rs.35 lacs. I find, the assessee has taken a specific ground before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that approval u/s 151 of the Act of the superior authorities is not in accordance with law. The relevant ground of appeal No.2 taken before the CIT(A) reads as under:-

“2. That under the facts and circumstances, approval u/s 151 of the superior authorities is not accordance with law and otherwise also mechanical and without application of mind, making the re- asstt. Proceedings unsustainable in law.”

9. I find the above ground has been extracted by the CIT(A) in the body of the order. She has also mentioned at para 3.2 of the order that the assessee contended that there was no proper compliance of the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. However, her finding on this issue is missing in the entire order. A perusal of the approval given u/s 151, copy of which is placed at pages 20 and 21 of the paper book shows that the Pr. CIT while giving approval has simply mentioned as under:-

“Yes. I am satisfied.”

22. Since, in the instant case, both the approving authorities have given approval in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, therefore, such reassessment proceedings have to be treated as not in accordance with law and has to be quashed.

“19. A perusal of the reasons as recorded by the AO reveals that there are three parts to it. In the first part, the AO has reproduced the precise information he has received from the Investigation Wing of the Revenue. This information is in the form of details of the amount of credit received, the payer, the payee, their respective banks, and the cheque number. This information by itself cannot be said to be tangible material.

How he can be said to be "a known entry operator" is even more mysterious. Clearly the source for all these conclusions, one after the other, is the Investigation report of the DIT. Nothing from that report is set out to enable the reader to appreciate how the conclusions flow therefrom.

23. Thus, the crucial link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material need not be set out. However, something therein which is critical to the formation of the belief must be referred to. Otherwise the link goes missing.